RE: E Pluribus Unum

RE: E Pluribus Unum (Full Version)

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

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 5:22:48 PM)
Butch, there is more to the debt from WW1 than you mention. I will post more tomorrow, or in my case, later today. RealOne, I am on about your assertion that America owed money to the King and was bankrupt because of it. Back it up or let it go, either or suits me.

Real0ne -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 5:28:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen 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 it wasnt the war between the states. Hell look at history its in our faces; We win the revolutionary war and franklin makes a deal with the king that america will pay the kings war debts. The winner always agrees to pay war debts at least if they want to go into bankruptcy! Then the UK was so terrified of the US victory they came back in 1812 and burned the white house down! Yeh we americans we showed em alright! LOL That is the same time that the 13th amendment was stripped from the constitution that said no nobility could hold office in government. Back to lincoln, it was the insolvent federal government against the solvent southern states! Looking for collateral to underwrite new bonds! The sounthern states were not allowed to vote in the senate! In FDR 1933 they underwrote the people as the collateral and what happens when you are collateral for a debt that can NEVER be paid? debt as money? now there is something to chew on! :) Oh and I forget to say that the us was bankrupt from its inception. When a country operates in bankruptcy or properly stated "insolvency" they lose their sovereignty to the creditors. Thats why the banks get away with murder...always has always will!

Real0ne -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 5:32:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Butch, there is more to the debt from WW1 than you mention. I will post more tomorrow, or in my case, later today. RealOne, I am on about your assertion that America owed money to the King and was bankrupt because of it. Back it up or let it go, either or suits me. I give out far to much information to chase after every tid bit of what I say but I do go this far. If I run across it in the future I will post it. I gave you and others the information needed for those who wish to research the subject matter and if you wish to claim that because I do not bend to posting digital trash that in reality is hearsay anyway as proof well we can all have a good laugh :)

LadyEllen -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 5:36:34 PM)
The first twelve amendments were adopted within fifteen years of the Constitution’s adoption. The first ten (the Bill of Rights) were adopted in 1791, the Eleventh Amendment in 1795 and the Twelfth Amendment in 1804. When the Thirteenth Amendment was proposed there had been no new amendments adopted in more than sixty years. The 13th is to abolish slavery Am I missing something here? E

Real0ne -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 5:48:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen The first twelve amendments were adopted within fifteen years of the Constitution’s adoption. The first ten (the Bill of Rights) were adopted in 1791, the Eleventh Amendment in 1795 and the Twelfth Amendment in 1804. When the Thirteenth Amendment was proposed there had been no new amendments adopted in more than sixty years. The 13th is to abolish slavery Am I missing something here? E yeh you sure are.... I am not sanctioning this site beyond what I post here but this is the general idea. SECTION II CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD In January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed the "Title of Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the resolve was sent to the States for ratification: By Dec. 10, 1812, twelve of the required thirteen States had ratified as follows: Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810; Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811; Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811; Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811; Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811; New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811; Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811; Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811; Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811; North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811; Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812;New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812. Before a thirteenth State could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out and interupted this very rapid move for ratification. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm

LadyEllen -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 5:57:55 PM)
interesting stuff RO - so would you say that the 1812 war was merely a coincidental interruption to the ratification process or more directly linked? E

Real0ne -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 6:01:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Butch, there is more to the debt from WW1 than you mention. I will post more tomorrow, or in my case, later today. RealOne, I am on about your assertion that America owed money to the King and was bankrupt because of it. Back it up or let it go, either or suits me. I give out far to much information to chase after every tid bit of what I say but I do go this far. If I run across it in the future I will post it. I gave you and others the information needed for those who wish to research the subject matter and if you wish to claim that because I do not bend to posting digital trash that in reality is hearsay anyway as proof well we can all have a good laugh :) the name of the book is before 1491 or something like that. amazon for 20 bucks

Real0ne -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 6:03:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen interesting stuff RO - so would you say that the 1812 war was merely a coincidental interruption to the ratification process or more directly linked? E where have we heard that repeated before? LOL thats the way its done isnt it?

LadyEllen -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 6:07:38 PM)
There is no doubt that the loss of the colonies was a major blow to the British empire, and there is little doubt in my mind that Britain should have done whatever was in its power to regain control of their economies, if not the hearts and minds, especially with Napoleon being bogged down and near finished in Russia (the US only won by the hand of the French, sorry!). However it makes no sense for Britain in those circumstances to attempt to interfere with the states' constitutional processes, if conquest was their aim. By way of conquest one may impose whatever rule one wishes. E

kdsub -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 6:07:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Butch, there is more to the debt from WW1 than you mention. I will post more tomorrow, or in my case, later today. RealOne, I am on about your assertion that America owed money to the King and was bankrupt because of it. Back it up or let it go, either or suits me. Oh I know all the excuses...that because we were all in the war together it should be forgiven... I believe one of our presidents did forgive the payments for one year...then it was never paid again...They seem to forget we were giving money for 7 years before we entered the war for two years. But I personally forgive you your debt to me if you do the same for me...lol Butch

AnimusRex -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 6:11:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Our problem is listening to the rest of the world. Yes. That is our single biggest problem, is that we listen to the rest of the world too much. We need to be more arrogant, more insular, less aware of, and interested in the opinions of other countries. That is it, I am sure of it.

AnimusRex -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 6:13:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub But I personally forgive you your debt to me if you do the same for me...lol Amidst all this talk about centuries old debt and repayment, somewhere a Cherokee chief and a descendent of a slave are looking at each other saying...wtf?

kdsub -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 6:15:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen There is no doubt that the loss of the colonies was a major blow to the British empire, and there is little doubt in my mind that Britain should have done whatever was in its power to regain control of their economies, if not the hearts and minds, especially with Napoleon being bogged down and near finished in Russia (the US only won by the hand of the French, sorry!). However it makes no sense for Britain in those circumstances to attempt to interfere with the states' constitutional processes, if conquest was their aim. By way of conquest one may impose whatever rule one wishes. E No… the US lost to the Vietnamese not for the lack of the ability to win but because of a lack of will to give up its sons...not the support of Russia. Same with the Revolutionary War...It was not the French it was because support for the war waned back home. People were tired of war and the death of their sons far from home. The King knew even he did not have the political power to continue the war. Butch

kdsub -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 6:18:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub But I personally forgive you your debt to me if you do the same for me...lol Amidst all this talk about centuries old debt and repayment, somewhere a Cherokee chief and a descendent of a slave are looking at each other saying...wtf? Oh you mean the same Cherokees that broke the treaty with the S. Carolina settlers and murdered most of my family...including women and children...There is blood on all our hands. Butch

Real0ne -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 6:24:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen There is no doubt that the loss of the colonies was a major blow to the British empire, and there is little doubt in my mind that Britain should have done whatever was in its power to regain control of their economies, if not the hearts and minds, especially with Napoleon being bogged down and near finished in Russia (the US only won by the hand of the French, sorry!). However it makes no sense for Britain in those circumstances to attempt to interfere with the states' constitutional processes, if conquest was their aim. By way of conquest one may impose whatever rule one wishes. E they won! we have debt as money so it is impossible to pay a debt! You get a meaningless reciept in equitable title while thye hold legal title. We are living in a fuedal society but people do not knwo what that really is so they think we are free! What a laugh! We pay taxes on property! The allodial title was split and eminent domain overules! We are tenants in fee simple. What was once untouchable can now be taken. You own equitable title and they own legal title. If you are a paralegal you certianly know what I am talking about or at least have some background in the debtor/creditor/trust relationships. they won! We as in the government are insolvent! Contracts overule constitutions. The states signed on for the debt FDR gave us the Social security that signed us on for the debt under the 14th. So everyone is locked in by constitution and contract. England won! through our ignorance of law simple as that!

LadyEllen -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 6:28:54 PM)
I'm getting confused now - so are you saying that Great Britain, (or the Crown as you will), owns the USA such that all of its peoples dwell at best as freehold tenants in its territories? And does that mean that you mean that Great Britain (or other) receives the property taxes? E

pahunkboy -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 6:35:12 PM)
Nevada is phasing out allodial title which leaves only Texas with it- where there - it can be gotten tho is hard to get. Naturally the big monied elite from EU/UK would evolve and issue a stranglehold on the USA. That has been a cause of friction since day 1. People think the US is so independent... and the corporate speech speaks volumes as to who owns the place.

kdsub -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 6:37:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Our problem is listening to the rest of the world. Yes. That is our single biggest problem, is that we listen to the rest of the world too much. We need to be more arrogant, more insular, less aware of, and interested in the opinions of other countries. That is it, I am sure of it. It sounds arrogant but if you think a little more it is not. If Iran, Syria, Pakistan, perhaps Korea knew that they would be held truly accountable by a power that could do it…there would never have been this terrorist war in the first place. Terrorist have no country…. They have no industry….they have very little ability to maintain a war on their own. They need the support of the Iran’s in this world to fight at all. If the US had let these countries know they would invade if they supported terrorist killing Americans it would have saved lives in the long run. They would have had to make a choice…was it worth destruction of their country to support terror through out the world. It is not being arrogant… it is making a choice…go to war and win at all cost as we did in WWII or playing this stupid game of death we are today and have been for many years. You may not agree but I hope you see my logic and consider it. Butch

Real0ne -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 6:51:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I'm getting confused now - so are you saying that Great Britain, (or the Crown as you will), owns the USA such that all of its peoples dwell at best as freehold tenants in its territories? And does that mean that you mean that Great Britain (or other) receives the property taxes? E I am not sure how much of a stake the crown has in the european banking industry. I am not privy to that and I would be suprised if any of you are? Well put it like this you arent because there is no way you can account for private deals. Dont forget the church gets their take on the action somewhere in there too. Things start getting more and more foggy after it gets to that point (at least for the resources I have available to me), because you come into the private dealings between these people as well and frankly we are not privy to this. I am sure that you have seen private deals come across your desk that went bad. If they do not go bad we will never see them just wonder how they could rule against us in court. For instance if you were given a patroonship to a rothchild adventure would you be blabbing? Not likely.

Real0ne -> RE: E Pluribus Unum (1/23/2010 6:54:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Nevada is phasing out allodial title which leaves only Texas with it- where there - it can be gotten tho is hard to get. Naturally the big monied elite from EU/UK would evolve and issue a stranglehold on the USA. That has been a cause of friction since day 1. People think the US is so independent... and the corporate speech speaks volumes as to who owns the place. wisconsin, minnesota and arkansas still have it on the books. New york not surprisingly phased it out. They do want it out of the constitutions because that is "absolute" tax free property rights. taxes are paid in these states because of contracts people made that were full disclosure was not made to them which of course they are void in abnitio but people again are really clueless as to the law and their rights.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125