RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (Full Version)

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



Message

Real0ne -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/17/2011 5:49:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Just more games as if the queen has no power and you and your fdriends have said that since the begining of time and not ONE of you put up any kind of brit law that supports what you claim.

remember I understand how to read the shit so dont try to pull a fast one on me now LOL




I have lost count how often I have given you valid links. You understand nothing and still dont know wtf the document you are quoting alludes to. It is noticable you have failed to answer my question yet again.


well I have not, the number is 0 which translates to ZERO, nada, zippo, zilch.

you have your opinion and that great, but when you want to talk law its all in black ink on white paper and if you cannot produce it, it does not exist, sorry if I decline to believe someones opinion.

.



Politesub53 -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/17/2011 6:07:20 PM)

Of course not. I have never mentioned the Treaty of Paris, Article one, to you have I ?

Not only are you appearing to be stupid, but also a liar.




Real0ne -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/17/2011 6:19:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Of course not. I have never mentioned the Treaty of Paris, Article one, to you have I ?

Not only are you appearing to be stupid, but also a liar.




you have shown neither, just another empty attack.

With regard to the treaty of paris, the same one that created CANADA!

How many times do I have to show you that political jurisdiction and "interests" are entirely 2 different things?

Show me a court case citing the treaty of paris WHEREIN WE DID NOT HAVE TO PAY THE KINGS WAR DEBTS!!!!

HMM?

doo dee doo.....



Politesub53 -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/18/2011 5:53:22 AM)

Show me one where you what ? Your bloviated posts just get worse.

Anyhow brains the last word is all yours....... I am bored with your ignorance.



mnottertail -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/18/2011 5:59:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Of course not. I have never mentioned the Treaty of Paris, Article one, to you have I ?

Not only are you appearing to be stupid, but also a liar.




you have shown neither, just another empty attack.

With regard to the treaty of paris, the same one that created CANADA!

How many times do I have to show you that political jurisdiction and "interests" are entirely 2 different things?

Show me a court case citing the treaty of paris WHEREIN WE DID NOT HAVE TO PAY THE KINGS WAR DEBTS!!!!

HMM?

doo dee doo.....



Since Patrick Henry, in the treaty of paris said we had to pay the kings war debts, I am not voting for the fucking guy. 



Real0ne -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/18/2011 10:36:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Show me one where you what ? Your bloviated posts just get worse.

Anyhow brains the last word is all yours....... I am bored with your ignorance.


Thanks....





Real0ne -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/18/2011 10:47:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

First you realize the word "People" is a proper noun right?
No, it is not. It is a pronoun.

'the People of the United States'  is; with the use of the preposition 'of' (linking it to the United States) does not describe Ron Melby only and specifically (my name is a 'Proper' noun) but is intended to describe that class of people (We) situated in the like circumstance of all the confederacy whos nomenclature is the United States.    

And beyond that, there isnt a goddamn thing.




The opening phrase does not describe a class at all but creates a class.

The proof is in the 1790, 1795, and 1802 statutes at large.

Now I understand why you get so much law etc bassackwards....  So from that respect this has been very informative.

Ok cuz I am such nice guy I will take a moment to show you how its done:

We is a nominative neutral non-count diectic plural tantum pronoun that frames a collective inflection and operates both as a joint subject and also a predeterminer for the word "People".  

("We" may refer to the Ron Clan, a proper noun [or object name] denoting a specific Clan, or maybe even a bunch of esquires since esquires (attorneys) wrote the constitution and they are people too, well on second thought)  

The article "the" is the determiner of the word "People" referencing a "specific" collective inflected by "We" therefore the proper noun "People" as a collective as a singular object.  Like saying "a People".

Likewise "the"+"United States" denotes the "United States" yet another collective as a singular proper noun object.

"of" makes the j+ connection which treats the word "People" like a prepositional object.

"People" is both the predeterminer and object modified by the preposition "United States".

We joins with a collective specific singular proper noun object "People" that carries the plural collective meaning as a singular object on to the plural collective singular object "United States" so the "noun phrase" structure is grammatically and syntactically legitimate.

It goes without or should go without saying that the word "people", a noun, modified to "Proper Noun" object limits the contract to the a specific group or class (whatever) of "people" determined by the meaning of the pronoun "we".  

Ron's error is that a pronoun is a word used "in place" or to "replace" a noun whereas the word people is a noun, where Capitalizing makes it a "Proper Noun" as I said, all nicely according to hoyl, and We the People of the United States together form the compound noun phrase subject of the comma delimited noun clauses.   MAny nouns are legitimately used as captonymns.

quote:

Delivered in the virginia convention on the eighth section of the federal constitution

Mr. Chairman:

IT IS now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen. [snip]

That means the arguments were bullshit.

I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? [snip]

~Patrick Henry




Termyn8or -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/19/2011 6:45:03 AM)

"and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

Sorry to crash the party, but that part seems to make it quite clear who "we the people" are. Of all the carefully chosen words, why does it not say "the Men of this great nation" or "new nation" or a whole lot of other things ?

Who do you think they meant by their posterity ? If these words were so carefully chosen, why doesn't it say something specific which would include the proverbial three fifths excluding the not taxed or some such ? What would be their posterity ? Their own heirs, as heirs to a throne in a monarchy ? Did they think they were going to keep the government in the family despite having elections ? Not likely.

So their posterity must then mean what ?

Same class war, only the names have changed. Of course if the Constitution had been adhered to things would be better for the commoner, but the authors were not commoners. Some people get that idea from somewhere but that is probably due to the propensity of people to read between the lines, rather than the lines.

So from where did "we the people" come ? From the poorhouses and debtor's prisons ? I think not. They were wealthy. Who picked them to write the Constitution anyway ? They had to be "leaders" of some sort. How did they get that way ?

Many people think many things. For example "taxation without representation is tyranny". This is not enforced, it is just an opinion. Agreeing with the concept does not make it Law. Then there's "send us your poor huddled masses..." yada yada yada. No basis in Law whatsoever.

However I see no point in harping about it, we are serfs, which in some ways is worse than being a slave. A serf has the illusion and responsibilities of being free, but nothing in substance really. Noone can give anyone freedom. True freedom is taken and enforced by guess what ? FORCE. If you do not have the power to enforce your own freedom, you owe it to another. If that is so, that which can be given can also be taken away. If it can be taken away you do not own it.

So basically when the politicians wipe their ass with the Constitution, might as well look the other way. There's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Until we can amass the power to make them think twice, forget it. And amassing such power would take a hell of alot of people, and at that point there's a group. A group without leadership is a mob. Without a group, one would need a superior weapon. Otherwise we're nothing but a bunch of "lone wolves".

There are millions of potential McVeighs, there are many Randy Weavers, but there are a hell of alot of Lon Horiuchis, and they ain't potential. So in essence, govermnent is the application of fear. Those who can apply the fear, govern. It really is that simple.

T^T



mnottertail -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/19/2011 9:35:43 AM)

We is a nominative neutral non-count diectic plural tantum pronoun that frames a collective inflection and operates both as a joint subject and also a predeterminer for the word "People".  

it would be plurale tantum, if you are going to spout asswipe spout it correctly.
And;  by and large (DO YOU KNOW THE MEANING OF BY AND LARGE)  even imbiciles understand we.  We don't need to know the number size and circuitry of transistors in a circuit to change the channel on the TV and get spongebob.  We all (even most imbeciles understand the word 'we').

the is an article.

and people or People does refer to a class of people; those 'of the United States' class.

So, the sentence says what it says, nothing more and nothing less, there is no vast conspiracy, no higher erethral meaning that transends the universe.

We the People of the United States.  We know who we are. And we know what 'is; is, and pontificating upon it is specious at best. 

You are non compos mentis, and therefore an idiot under the law as defined in Black's dictionary.

You have the law understood as koyaanisquatsi.



Moonhead -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/19/2011 10:42:30 AM)

The crap film with a Phillip Glass soundtrack and fuck all else going for it?



mnottertail -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/19/2011 10:43:22 AM)

About what the tantric plural indicitave bullshit has to do with the law.



Moonhead -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/19/2011 10:44:50 AM)

Seen.
I do wonder if English is R0's first language: maybe he's an illegal immigrant from Mexico who has trouble with your American idiom?



mnottertail -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/19/2011 11:10:56 AM)

He lectures the English on the proper and mystical use of our words as well.

He says We is 'diectic' and therefore holds that it is fixed by its utterance and only by its context to the referent. 

This is clearly not a case of deixis, or we wouldnt make use of (euphonically damaging, I know, but that is what the word of does) 'of the United States' (which portrays We to any frame of utterance, and any referent in the document).  

But I think he is still work working with the Saxon and/or Norman rules of grammar, because he cant seem to get out of the Magna Carta era, and certainly, you must agree as we all do, by his tour de force of impenetrable proofs that since your Cabbage ain't signed it, it is a valueless scrap of poofterish panjandromic in any case.  



Moonhead -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/19/2011 11:32:31 AM)

The really funny thing about that, of course, is the main reason we stopped speaking Middle English in the first place is because those Germanic structural laws of grammar were a pain in the arse to use and massively oversimplified the language...



Termyn8or -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/19/2011 5:37:53 PM)

"You are non compos mentis, and therefore an idiot under the law as defined in Black's dictionary."

Sure thing. Can I bask ?

But remember this: when I say "We The People" it does not mean everybody.

And to be non compos mentis seems to be all the rage these days. Hell, I didn't even need drugs to achieve it. Now WITH drugs, well let's not go there.

We means MY people, not every fucking asshole on the planet, on the continent, in the country, in this city nor even on this side of town. It doesn't mean some guy down the street. What does "we" mean to you ? Are you Jesus or something ? We mean me and those I have chosen.

Diagram sentences all you want, but your definition seems to defy reality. We are not them. We never were, the only difference is now we figured it out.

T^T



Real0ne -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/20/2011 6:45:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

We is a nominative neutral non-count diectic plural tantum pronoun that frames a collective inflection and operates both as a joint subject and also a predeterminer for the word "People".  

it would be plurale tantum, if you are going to spout asswipe spout it correctly.
And;  by and large (DO YOU KNOW THE MEANING OF BY AND LARGE)  even imbiciles understand we.  We don't need to know the number size and circuitry of transistors in a circuit to change the channel on the TV and get spongebob.  We all (even most imbeciles understand the word 'we').

the is an article.

and people or People does refer to a class of people; those 'of the United States' class.

So, the sentence says what it says, nothing more and nothing less, there is no vast conspiracy, no higher erethral meaning that transends the universe.

We the People of the United States.  We know who we are. And we know what 'is; is, and pontificating upon it is specious at best. 

You are non compos mentis, and therefore an idiot under the law as defined in Black's dictionary.

You have the law understood as koyaanisquatsi.



you know the wisconsin constitution sucks, californias on the other hand rocks, and minnies soda is frankly a joke.

we thank god for our "civil" rights.  what a wasteland of a constitution.

nah I really dont care about any of that because doing secretarial end and correcting my spelling seems well fitting, but the strawmen arguments have nothing compared to my laying out the goods.



Real0ne -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/20/2011 6:47:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The really funny thing about that, of course, is the main reason we stopped speaking Middle English in the first place is because those Germanic structural laws of grammar were a pain in the arse to use and massively oversimplified the language...


made it understandable!

cant have that in law!

they would be firing judges left and right and shooting attorneys.  LOL



Real0ne -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/20/2011 6:56:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"You are non compos mentis, and therefore an idiot under the law as defined in Black's dictionary."

Sure thing. Can I bask ?

But remember this: when I say "We The People" it does not mean everybody.

And to be non compos mentis seems to be all the rage these days. Hell, I didn't even need drugs to achieve it. Now WITH drugs, well let's not go there.

We means MY people, not every fucking asshole on the planet, on the continent, in the country, in this city nor even on this side of town. It doesn't mean some guy down the street. What does "we" mean to you ? Are you Jesus or something ? We mean me and those I have chosen.

Diagram sentences all you want, but your definition seems to defy reality. We are not them. We never were, the only difference is now we figured it out.

T^T


Hey I gave them the knowledge on precisely where it explains that all in detail proving the matter.

The "people" did not vote on any constitution either state that I am aware of and damn sure not the federal one.

Henry so nicely points out "what the hell or who the hell gave anyone the "AUTHORITY" to speak on behalf of the people"????

No one!

It was purely fraud and created a class system here in america much like england.

That did not change with the 14th in fact was made worse and the "people" were now no different than subjects of the king they left.

You nailed it, the supreme court confirms it!

HOWEVER th eone thing that we all agree or at least should agree upon is that the federal constitution cannot rightfully mean the "People" s it has been defined, since the states cannot have prosperity, they cannot have "life" and they cannot enjoy "liberty".

Those are purely attributes of man.

Further a true original constitution in the original hand would have had words like "Congrefs" not Congress etc.

Lots of hanky panky shit went on. 



Termyn8or -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/20/2011 9:31:00 PM)

"And;  by and large (DO YOU KNOW THE MEANING OF BY AND LARGE)  even imbiciles understand we."

Take out the word "even" and "we" agree.

Put it this way, who signed it ? If I sign something do I sign for you ? If I agree to get cable (not that I will), does that mean you get cable ? If I sign a contract for a cell, you get one ? If I sign a petition, should I just put you name down as well ?

You can diagram sentences all day long if you like, how about this one : "A well regualted militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Can't have it both ways so which is it ? Who are the People ?

T^T



Termyn8or -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/20/2011 9:42:47 PM)

"Lots of hanky panky shit went on."

Fact is they were traitors. Did you ever stop to consider that ? I didn't say they were traitors to us or the US, but they were in fact traitors.

My confidence in the whole thing is destroyed. At this point really, it's not worth the time to care. Not that I don't but the thing is what would you have me do ?

It's an intersting point of history, but that's all. Everybody looks out for number one, sometimes collectively, but that never means everyone.

T^T



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625