quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
There are two possibilities, first that the NSA gathers all that data indiscriminately. Even if you used software to look for specific keywords it would still be an insurmountable problem there is just too much activity to deal with. (google reports that in 2011 there were 1.7 trillion searches). Second they target specific people or specific sorts of interactions, ip addresses are location specific so it would be fairly easy to monitor emails, chats etc. between people in the US and abroad. This is both feasible and legal.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
There are two possibilities, first that the NSA gathers all that data indiscriminately. Even if you used software to look for specific keywords it would still be an insurmountable problem there is just too much activity to deal with. (google reports that in 2011 there were 1.7 trillion searches). Second they target specific people or specific sorts of interactions, ip addresses are location specific so it would be fairly easy to monitor emails, chats etc. between people in the US and abroad. This is both feasible and legal.

I'm quite willing to bet it's not the second one. And, the first, is not legal according, according to what has been posted.

The forced metadata dump against Verizon is certainly not pertaining to non-US citizens.

Thank you for your support, Ken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

first off there is no such thing as "founding fathers", there are british esquires acting as constitutors.

on behalf of whom? you tell.


its due process under the common law. no formal written rules needed. that is why the common law is often referred to as the unwritten law.

However if you want to make a contract and bind someone else there damn well better be paper trail.

You are dancing and providing no paper trail, though I wish you would so my faith would be at least a little repaired.

And STILL you cant answer any questions... as usual.

R0, you arent able to back up your smack talk.... you never can when someone calls you on it.

Referendums were not even required in most states at that time.
They were not created yet. Jefferson was working on a rule for Virginia as he was trotting off to the Continental Congress. So, that solves that. Yes nice admission on your part!
No referendums.
yes I already said that how many times!
No paper trail either,
No bonafide proof either LMAO

Ask you who chose the delegates since you keep implying they werent authorized. And you still cant answer that either.
off point
You insist that the states didnt approve the constitution. Yet you have not provided proof of that fact either.
OOPs there is that non existent entity approving shit again
Your arguments here, like most of your arguments, are baseless. You demand answers, yet cant give them yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

lol.. of course there is.. which is why he refuses to discuss it. I just love "realing" him in

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, the documents of each states ratification (9 of the 13 had to ratify) are in the national archives, and some of them are on display, time to time.  So the fact that they have not xeroxed them for realones tinfoil schemes to babble on about how he has vound them inadequate in his court of law notwithstanding, there is a paper trail. 

quote:

who chose delegates again is completely irrelevant and off point, since the choice of delegate has not a damn thing to do with the delegates authority to create a state contract without consent from those who are intended to be governed by it.

See dictatorships create contracts without your consent, see the difference? NM

quote:

I do not need to back up my smack talk, you just did that in spades with your admission of no requirement to get the peoples opinion (by vote) hence a complete FAILure to produce ANY fucking thing that proves the states were created by the inhabitants NOT THE SOVEREIGNS. (thats the king and his assigns)

quote:

its due process under the common law. no formal written rules needed. that is why the common law is often referred to as the unwritten law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

who chose delegates again is completely irrelevant and off point, since the choice of delegate has not a damn thing to do with the delegates authority to create a state contract without consent from those who are intended to be governed by it.

See dictatorships create contracts without your consent, see the difference? NM

And what YOU fail to concede is that these were a set of "states" who, many, didnt even have a formal state constitution of their own. Who made teh rules? The only ones there, the landowners.

And, yes, over 200 years later, we have a man whining about what they did back then, calling it "unfair" when he doesnt have all his own facts set straight.

quote:

I do not need to back up my smack talk, you just did that in spades with your admission of no requirement to get the peoples opinion (by vote) hence a complete FAILure to produce ANY fucking thing that proves the states were created by the inhabitants NOT THE SOVEREIGNS. (thats the king and his assigns)

Oh FFS... now you want requirements to have requirements to have a vote?

That tin foil hat is a bit tight these days on you. Where do you get the notion that a referendum was "common law"?

quote:

its due process under the common law. no formal written rules needed. that is why the common law is often referred to as the unwritten law.

The UK didnt hold a referendum until 1973. So it isnt English law.

quote:

so since there was no requirement then no record exists that proves the states are legitimate.

quote:

Didnt say a referendum was common law either, you seem unbelievably confused here. Do you know the elements of a contract? It would seem not.

quote:

its due process under the common law. no formal written rules needed. that is why the common law is often referred to as the unwritten law.

quote:

oh and btw, several states were created after the civil war so you must have the inhabitant vote from those modern states.

quote:

oh and they were colonies chartered by the king by the way, and recognized as his estates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

so since there was no requirement then no record exists that proves the states are legitimate.

The states are legitimate because they voted on their own constitutions.

quote:

Didnt say a referendum was common law either, you seem unbelievably confused here. Do you know the elements of a contract? It would seem not.

quote:

its due process under the common law. no formal written rules needed. that is why the common law is often referred to as the unwritten law.

Copied from your post.

quote:

oh and btw, several states were created after the civil war so you must have the inhabitant vote from those modern states.

Now you change courses... which state "from the modern" era do you want the vote for?

quote:

oh and they were colonies chartered by the king by the way, and recognized as his estates.

Which would have no bearing under the new government being started. So why follow those rules of a king they were kicking out?

quote:

You sufficiently admitted that I am correct and there is no proof that the inhabitants voted to create the states. The rest is other stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

You sufficiently admitted that I am correct and there is no proof that the inhabitants voted to create the states. The rest is other stuff.

ROFL

Except... you are wrong.

The Constitution, and the US government, while they are corrupt on many levels, are legitimate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
The Constitution, and the US government, while they are corrupt on many levels, are legitimate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
So, there is no possiblility of a number you dial here stateside being a spoofing mailbox to another country?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)