RE: E Pluribus Unum

RE: E Pluribus Unum (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 3:46:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead The second is the sticking point, sadly. Texas started the new tea party, they started wearing their guns to them. I think missouri is doing the same. Talk about give them a reason

Real0ne -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 3:48:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead The second is the sticking point, sadly. Texas started the new tea party, they started wearing their guns to them. I think missouri is doing the same. Talk about give them a reason They wiped out the republic with lincoln, then cast it in concrete in 33, now they are wiping out the democracy.

kdsub -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 3:50:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Crikey Butch, no one is getting at the poor ole USA OK? I am positing an argument that the USA is creeping ever closer to becoming a fascist state - which you may or may not disagree on - and as a friend I'm telling you what I see, not only out of concern for you lot of course but also because if the US falls to such hands it shouldnt be long before the UK follows suit. E Thanks LadyEllen...I did come off very aggressive and for that I apologize... It is a fault of mine I fight every day. But no… I don't believe we are moving in the direction you are thinking. In fact I think we are now moving away from the very list you described. We are a more flexible country than the UK…we can and do change very fast…Perhaps too fast on occasion. Bush and the Republican Congress went too far to support big business and it brought our country to disaster. The people rectified that with a new administration. They are waiting for change as I type…If it does not come soon the policy makers will change again until we are satisfied. The war is the problem in America…we are getting tired of fighting it with our hands tied behind our backs by people that refuse to help. This makes politics volatile. Our problem is listening to the rest of the world. We should have had this war won. Terrorists or freedom fighters as you choose cannot fight without weapons. I believe we should have not enter the war at all or gone full out and took out the weapon suppliers. But soon all well be settled one way or the other but we will still be the land of the free not fascists. Butch

kdsub -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 4:03:38 PM)
Here is my definition of Fascist.. ."a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" This is not my America individuals often challenge the government and win...our leaders are not dictators...Congress reins them in every time. We have anything but a centralized government...there is no forcible suppression of the opposition other than a few fist fights of individuals... There is no economic regimentation…and we are fighting the social economic problems… our average yearly income still surpasses many other free countries in this world. If you want to make us something at least read the definition of the words you are using. Butch

Real0ne -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 4:07:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Not at all MH - if enough people realise whats going on and see it for what it is or could easily become, then change shall come as Butch (I think) was saying. The problem is that the shouting match is now greatly in favour of those who can shout longest and loudest, appealing to emotional arguments and manipulating those unable to comprehend the situation. E LE the biggest problem that I see is there are tons of groups starting up all over the place all of who are fed up with the government. they are starting to band together. Not all of them want a peaceful solution. I tell people we can do it in the courts They tell me there is not enough time and the last damn thing they want to do is piss around spending their time becoming a lawyer so they can fight in the courts when the gun is right over there. That is unfortunately many peoples approach over here and they are wearing their arms at tea parties to make a point. If the reps do not move to impeach and start an amendment process soon there could possibly be a breakout of a shit load of bloodshed. It was never like this over here, not even in the 60/70s era. Now combine that with the attacks on the gun shows over here... Texans are livid over the fed encroachment. we have micro radio stations popping up all over as well and tons of legal sites patriots movements and frankly I am a bit worried where this is going.

Politesub53 -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 4:11:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Our problem is listening to the rest of the world. We should have had this war won. Terrorists or freedom fighters as you choose cannot fight without weapons. I believe we should have not enter the war at all or gone full out and took out the weapon suppliers. Butch, which nations are the top five arms dealers. I will give you a clue...The UN Security Council. Bush dithered when the CIA had a chance to trap Bin Laden after Tora Bora ( this is according to a story i saw involving on of the CIA`s top operatives in Afghanistan at the time. The actual operative made the claim ). Bush, along with Blair, made a hash of Iraq. I suggest that if Bin Laden had been taken out, and the rebuilding of Iraq handled better. Much of the fighting would have been over long ago.

Politesub53 -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 4:16:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne If the reps do not move to impeach and start an amendment process soon there could possibly be a breakout of a shit load of bloodshed. Impeach who, over what, specifically ?

Real0ne -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 4:26:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne If the reps do not move to impeach and start an amendment process soon there could possibly be a breakout of a shit load of bloodshed. Impeach who, over what, specifically ? its a violation of the constitution in that they gave the corporations the political power to choose our candidates for us but out spending us. their job is to protect the constitution and the rights of the people not the desires of the corporation.

mnottertail -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 4:29:24 PM)
well, easy for you to say, but once from the constitution and precedent only, how did they violate it? No magna charta no common law constitutional law only

Politesub53 -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 4:33:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne If the reps do not move to impeach and start an amendment process soon there could possibly be a breakout of a shit load of bloodshed. Impeach who, over what, specifically ? its a violation of the constitution in that they gave the corporations the political power to choose our candidates for us but out spending us. their job is to protect the constitution and the rights of the people not the desires of the corporation. Like i asked, impeach who ? The five judges who made a judgement ? Surely that is what they are there for. Are you seriously suggesting people will take up arms because of this, as per your earlier post ? Do you think anything ever than the candidate with the most money, got the most advertising, or even bought off voters ? History is littered with elected officials getting into office by calling in favours or making a few deals.

Real0ne -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 4:43:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne If the reps do not move to impeach and start an amendment process soon there could possibly be a breakout of a shit load of bloodshed. Impeach who, over what, specifically ? its a violation of the constitution in that they gave the corporations the political power to choose our candidates for us but out spending us. their job is to protect the constitution and the rights of the people not the desires of the corporation. Like i asked, impeach who ? The five judges who made a judgement ? Surely that is what they are there for. Are you seriously suggesting people will take up arms because of this, as per your earlier post ? Do you think anything ever than the candidate with the most money, got the most advertising, or even bought off voters ? History is littered with elected officials getting into office by calling in favours or making a few deals. I am not suggesting that peole will take up arms over I am telling you people are already displaying their arms at the tea parties and yes you can talk to many people in passing and they in private claim the only solution is blood because politics is not working. My approach is from the courts personally. The problem of course is that this goes beyond that and people are learning that they have been reduced to the status of a corporate person. How much straw can you pile on a that camel till it breaks their back. Now people are are starting to figger out the abuse and how this whole country is one huge corporation that started in tada! the uk!

Real0ne -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 4:45:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail well, easy for you to say, but once from the constitution and precedent only, how did they violate it? No magna charta no common law constitutional law only bullshit read 5 and 7 I use the magna charta in my briefs That constitution is to protect the "governed" not me.

Politesub53 -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 4:52:05 PM)
"Now people are are starting to figger out the abuse and how this whole country is one huge corporation that started in tada! the uk! " So which corporation would that be, since you have been independent for over 200 years ?

kdsub -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 4:55:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Our problem is listening to the rest of the world. We should have had this war won. Terrorists or freedom fighters as you choose cannot fight without weapons. I believe we should have not enter the war at all or gone full out and took out the weapon suppliers. Butch, which nations are the top five arms dealers. I will give you a clue...The UN Security Council. Bush dithered when the CIA had a chance to trap Bin Laden after Tora Bora ( this is according to a story i saw involving on of the CIA`s top operatives in Afghanistan at the time. The actual operative made the claim ). Bush, along with Blair, made a hash of Iraq. I suggest that if Bin Laden had been taken out, and the rebuilding of Iraq handled better. Much of the fighting would have been over long ago. I agree Butch

Real0ne -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 4:56:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 "Now people are are starting to figger out the abuse and how this whole country is one huge corporation that started in tada! the uk! " So which corporation would that be, since you have been independent for over 200 years ? independent? is that like a sick joke? This country was created in bankruptcy and remains so today. Remember that little debt we owed to the king of england et al? Wanna show me the receipt? that is the: Thank You America! PAID IN FULL!

Politesub53 -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 5:01:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 "Now people are are starting to figger out the abuse and how this whole country is one huge corporation that started in tada! the uk! " So which corporation would that be, since you have been independent for over 200 years ? independent? is that like a sick joke? This country was created in bankruptcy and remains so today. Remember that little debt we owed to the king of england et al? Wanna show me the receipt? that is the: Thank You America! PAID IN FULL! If you really want to talk about debts and bankruptcy, do some research on WWII and the deals between the US and the UK. Try not to post any ignorant statements that you cant back up by facts.

kdsub -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 5:06:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 "Now people are are starting to figger out the abuse and how this whole country is one huge corporation that started in tada! the uk! " So which corporation would that be, since you have been independent for over 200 years ? independent? is that like a sick joke? This country was created in bankruptcy and remains so today. Remember that little debt we owed to the king of england et al? Wanna show me the receipt? that is the: Thank You America! PAID IN FULL! Maybe this debt by the UK would make up for what we owed the King. And while the UK dutifully pays off its World War II debts, those from World War I remain resolutely unpaid. And are by no means trifling. In 1934, Britain owed the US $4.4bn of World War I debt (about £866m at 1934 exchange rates). Adjusted by the Retail Price Index, a typical measure of inflation, £866m would equate to £40bn now, and if adjusted by the growth of GDP, to about £225bn. Butch

LadyEllen -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 5:09:18 PM)
And the tobacco farmers of Virgina owe the Glasgow merchants millions too. This isnt what the thread is about, although I dare say someone can make a link somehow. The WWII debt was paid off a few years back by the way, the WWI debt, you'd best ask your bosses why it hasnt been pursued? Maybe the same reason it aint worth suing Virgina tobacco growers. E

Real0ne -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 5:14:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 "Now people are are starting to figger out the abuse and how this whole country is one huge corporation that started in tada! the uk! " So which corporation would that be, since you have been independent for over 200 years ? independent? is that like a sick joke? This country was created in bankruptcy and remains so today. Remember that little debt we owed to the king of england et al? Wanna show me the receipt? that is the: Thank You America! PAID IN FULL! If you really want to talk about debts and bankruptcy, do some research on WWII and the deals between the US and the UK. Try not to post any ignorant statements that you cant back up by facts. yeh american corporations supported hitler I imagine those debts are quite high. Hey no need to get shitty with me because it only takes a second to look up the executive orders of FDR declaring the US insolvent in 1933 as I said and senator trafficants statements on the senate floor testifying to that FACT! The US is bankrupt and always has been bankrupt and always will be bankrupt. That is how they got around the constitution since lincoln. I dont make the history man they did so dont blame me.

LadyEllen -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 5:18:09 PM)
ah, so if the US went bankrupt in 1933, this will explain the absence of payment for WWI. The administrator didnt call us at any stage prior to the liquidation - and the party to whom the debt was owed ceased to be and therefore could not be paid. The newly configured US could not be held to be the heir and therefore due the debt, otherwise it should also be held liable for its predecessor's debt. E

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875