RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing?

RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (Full Version)

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

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 6:35:09 AM)
I see nothing in title 4 that prohibits it, nor in presidential proclamations or exectutive orders.

Real0ne -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 6:40:58 AM)
nothing that prohibits is referenced to the rights of people. government has enumerated authority. meaning you got your law ass backwards. If it is not authorized by positive codification it does not exist. Hence show me the code authorizing a 4th color.

mnottertail -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 6:45:20 AM)
You are as full of shit as a christmas goose, and absolutely wrong. For a trivial example (and not from the congressional record), but from law. . . What statute, law, title code, or constitutional section authorizes the wearing of glasses to correct vision? Or if that be beyond your current legal acumen, the one that authorizes you to have lightbulbs?

slvemike4u -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 6:47:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox Auschwits was on the polish side of things if I recall, but Old Dad lead a strike team into it on Patton's orders. Patton tended to piss people off, he was very unpolitical about the Soviets... Ike ended up having to stop his premature rush to the 'Russian' side of Germany by making him run out of gas 50 miles from the front. That may or may not be enough detail to verify my claim, I don't really care; I know who my grandfather was, I don't want to advertise it more than this. Pattons "rush to the "Russian" side of Germany" was an attempt to liberate his son in law(John Waters) from a prisoner of war camp.He endangered serviceman's lives on an ill-advised"raid" deep behind enemy lines for personal family motivations. Ike needed to remind him that 3rd army didn't actually belong to him. I'd heard that, but I'm not sure I believe it. Pretty much the consensus in my family was that Patton wanted to keep going because he was convinced we'd win, and that it was far better for us to manage that real estate than it was for the Soviets to. I have no idea personally, but that's the version I was always told. We should all pretty much go wiith that than,seeing as that is the consensus in your family.Yep Patton sent a raid deep behind enemy lines to blunt the mighty Red Army . No need to let historical fact,nor common sense get in the way of family consensus. By the way....seems the Republic still stands.Thanks guys....I don't want to miss the revolution ;-)

Real0ne -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 6:47:27 AM)
fine put up the fucking law and prove it! government cant do what ever in the hell they damn well please. (because its not prohibited) what planet do you live on man? Hell show me that law too!

mnottertail -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 6:48:58 AM)
no, not my claim, it is yours. here, try this...............you like to fuck around in crazy ramblings......... law is not based on malum in se, it is based on malum prohibitum.

RacerJim -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 6:49:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Sedition. FBI should arrest the man today and lay charges. Anything less is simply ignoring the uptick in calls for violence from the right. Treason, High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The FBI should arrest the POTUS asap and charge him with same. Anything less is simply ignoring the U.S. Constitution.

Real0ne -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 6:52:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail no, not my claim, it is yours. here, try this...............you like to fuck around in crazy ramblings......... law is not based on malum in se, it is based on malum prohibitum. I accept your concession and now what is your point with this tangent?

pahunkboy -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 6:57:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail no, not my claim, it is yours. here, try this...............you like to fuck around in crazy ramblings......... law is not based on malum in se, it is based on malum prohibitum. I accept your concession and now what is your point with this tangent? The govt willl shine your shoes.

RacerJim -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 7:08:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox Auschwits was on the polish side of things if I recall, but Old Dad lead a strike team into it on Patton's orders. Patton tended to piss people off, he was very unpolitical about the Soviets... Ike ended up having to stop his premature rush to the 'Russian' side of Germany by making him run out of gas 50 miles from the front. That may or may not be enough detail to verify my claim, I don't really care; I know who my grandfather was, I don't want to advertise it more than this. Pattons "rush to the "Russian" side of Germany" was an attempt to liberate his son in law(John Waters) from a prisoner of war camp.He endangered serviceman's lives on an ill-advised"raid" deep behind enemy lines for personal family motivations. Ike needed to remind him that 3rd army didn't actually belong to him. And your opinion of Patton's reason(s) is based on what substantive reference? In stopping Patton, Ike actually set the stage for the "Cold War"...which Patton had repeatedly foretold would ensue if we didn't kick the Russian's asses back to Moscow.

mnottertail -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 7:15:51 AM)
MIRABLE DICTU!!!!!!!!!! In this very narrow corridor of discourse, I am aligned with RacerJim. I do; however, find it the epitome of irony (and several other unnameable thoughts) that RJ would solicit a 'substantive reference'. I can assure you that the former will never again happen in our collective lifetimes, since the laws of physics forbid it.

Moonhead -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 7:16:24 AM)
Tindall and Shi's America, and Churchill's history of the second world war (can't remember the title offhand), for a start. Of course, neither source is as reliable as some load of hearsay shit you've heard third or fourth hand...

Real0ne -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 7:20:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u By the way....seems the Republic still stands.Thanks guys....I don't want to miss the revolution ;-) it does? and how do you propose to get to it in the article 1 courts? Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court and even that court was created by legislation UNDER THE UNITED STATES. I will create a court under R1 and call it "judicial" instead of administrative. Dont worry it will be impartial and separate from the congress whose authority created it.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 7:26:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Sedition. FBI should arrest the man today and lay charges. Anything less is simply ignoring the uptick in calls for violence from the right. Treason, High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The FBI should arrest the POTUS asap and charge him with same. Anything less is simply ignoring the U.S. Constitution. Remember you tried that with President Clinton. Didn't really work out for you did it.

Real0ne -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 7:28:41 AM)
contractual immunity

Moonhead -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 7:31:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Sedition. FBI should arrest the man today and lay charges. Anything less is simply ignoring the uptick in calls for violence from the right. Treason, High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The FBI should arrest the POTUS asap and charge him with same. Anything less is simply ignoring the U.S. Constitution. Remember you tried that with President Clinton. Didn't really work out for you did it. It's very strange that there wasn't any of this sort of talk while the chimp was invading a sovereign nation under false pretences and committing war crimes, isn't it?

slvemike4u -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 7:54:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox Auschwits was on the polish side of things if I recall, but Old Dad lead a strike team into it on Patton's orders. Patton tended to piss people off, he was very unpolitical about the Soviets... Ike ended up having to stop his premature rush to the 'Russian' side of Germany by making him run out of gas 50 miles from the front. That may or may not be enough detail to verify my claim, I don't really care; I know who my grandfather was, I don't want to advertise it more than this. Pattons "rush to the "Russian" side of Germany" was an attempt to liberate his son in law(John Waters) from a prisoner of war camp.He endangered serviceman's lives on an ill-advised"raid" deep behind enemy lines for personal family motivations. Ike needed to remind him that 3rd army didn't actually belong to him. And your opinion of Patton's reason(s) is based on what substantive reference? In stopping Patton, Ike actually set the stage for the "Cold War"...which Patton had repeatedly foretold would ensue if we didn't kick the Russian's asses back to Moscow. Oh good god man...just google "task force Baum"...Pattons raid was not meant to hold back the red tide...it was an ill advised attempt to bring good news to his fucking daughter.

slvemike4u -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 8:02:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail MIRABLE DICTU!!!!!!!!!! In this very narrow corridor of discourse, I am aligned with RacerJim. I do; however, find it the epitome of irony (and several other unnameable thoughts) that RJ would solicit a 'substantive reference'. I can assure you that the former will never again happen in our collective lifetimes, since the laws of physics forbid it. Well maybe next time you will know better....Baum's task force was sent some 60 miles behind German lines to liberate Lt.Col John Waters...Pattons son in law.It was a fiasco from start to finish.Waters was shot during the initial breaching of the camp and had to be left behind.The task force,now trying to egress(without the "package" they were sent for) wound up surrounded...the task force was than told to break into small groups and make their way back to American lines as best they could.Most were killed or captured in the attempt. The camp was liberated a mere week later by American forces in the natural order of things. Patton should have been immediately court martialed and stripped of rank for this gross dereliction of duty. For sustantive confirmation of the facts.....google is your damm friend.

Moonhead -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 8:08:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne yeh its like discussing radiation with someone who does not know what an atom is. Well, you can't be expected to understand English terms any better than legal ones, I suppose.

mnottertail -> RE: Is this a threat? sedition? or just posturing? (10/26/2010 8:19:04 AM)
quote: For sustantive confirmation of the facts.....google is your damm friend. So, what's with the tough guy shit? Google also brings me to imbiciles like rush limbaugh, and neo-con knuckledragging blogs...... So, never having heard this before (never having much interest either) I don't think credible cites are at all out of order. I ask for them from jimbobbillyboy, but of course never get them........ Moonhead did me the service, huh....learn something new everyday.

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875