PDA

View Full Version : The 9 step program




Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-27-2008, 02:11 PM
Hi, my name is Emanuel and I am a worthless American citizen. As a worthless American citizen, I am rediculed by others who have significant pedigree cultures or dual citizenships.

Step 1: As a worthless American citizen who is losing my soul to tyranny, I confess that my government is no longer controlled by me.

Step 2: I have come to believe that no greater understanding is needed beyond comprehending that the corrupt power of tyranny is conquered ultimately by the greater power of the self evident truths.

Step 3: I have come to believe that even the least amongst us have natural rights imprinted inalienably on the conscience of their human souls.

Step 4: I hold our nation's true wealth to be in the U.S. Constitution while its Civil Purpose is greater in value than any legal counterfeit excremented out from it.

Step 5: While my life as a worthless soldier can be sacrificed for the sake of any menial legal precedent, I will give my life as a citizen in the militia for this nation's Civil Purpose.

Step 6: It is my belief that I am part of a nation of people, not of law makers, of lawyers, of judges, of bankers, of tyrants, of the press, of corporations, of professors, of physicians, of Free Masons, of insurance companies, of the intelligence community, of the military, of energy companies, of special interests, of billionaires, of millionaires et al.

Step 7: While local inventiveness solves problems in America, the zeal of Federal lobbying eats her up.

Step 8: While I am lowered to be a client regarding legal precedents, I am uplifted as a citizen regarding the Civil Purpose in the Constitution.

Step 9: I believe there is no greater purpose than this Civil Purpose: As liberty is granted to the discouraged untouchables to bring them to the dinner table, the king's authority is bound to remain at the same table.

Truth Warrior
05-27-2008, 02:49 PM
The 50 step program: Shrink the government by 2% each year. :D

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-27-2008, 03:21 PM
The 50 step program: Shrink the government by 2% each year. :D

I think you are in denial.

Truth Warrior
05-27-2008, 03:23 PM
I think you are in denial.
I deny that. :D

rancher89
05-27-2008, 03:28 PM
I resemble that remark....

so, would a 100 step program work @ 1% a year???

or a 6 mo. plan at 100%??????

OptionsTrader
05-27-2008, 03:33 PM
The 50 step program: Shrink the government by 2% each year. :D

36.41696801% ain't bad.

98
96.04
94.1192
92.236816
90.39207968
88.58423809
86.81255332
85.07630226
83.37477621
81.70728069
80.07313507
78.47167237
76.90223893
75.36419415
73.85691026
72.37977206
70.93217662
69.51353309
68.12326242
66.76079718
65.42558123
64.11706961
62.83472822
61.57803365
60.34647298
59.13954352
57.95675265
56.7976176
55.66166524
54.54843194
53.4574633
52.38831403
51.34054775
50.3137368
49.30746206
48.32131282
47.35488656
46.40778883
45.47963306
44.5700404
43.67863959
42.8050668
41.94896546
41.10998615
40.28778643
39.4820307
38.69239008
37.91854228
37.16017144
36.41696801

Truth Warrior
05-27-2008, 03:34 PM
I resemble that remark....

so, would a 100 step program work @ 1% a year???

or a 6 mo. plan at 100%??????

Just "brainstorming" possible doable solutions. Something slow and easy for final shock prevention.

50 years just seemed about right. Just guessing though. :)

Truth Warrior
05-27-2008, 03:50 PM
36.41696801% ain't bad.

98
96.04
94.1192
92.236816
90.39207968
88.58423809
86.81255332
85.07630226
83.37477621
81.70728069
80.07313507
78.47167237
76.90223893
75.36419415
73.85691026
72.37977206
70.93217662
69.51353309
68.12326242
66.76079718
65.42558123
64.11706961
62.83472822
61.57803365
60.34647298
59.13954352
57.95675265
56.7976176
55.66166524
54.54843194
53.4574633
52.38831403
51.34054775
50.3137368
49.30746206
48.32131282
47.35488656
46.40778883
45.47963306
44.5700404
43.67863959
42.8050668
41.94896546
41.10998615
40.28778643
39.4820307
38.69239008
37.91854228
37.16017144
36.41696801
Then we could just do it again. :)
Actually I was thinking today / 50, that much reduction each year. It's negotiable.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-27-2008, 03:50 PM
Just "brainstorming" possible doable solutions. Something slow and easy for final shock prevention.

50 years just seemed about right. Just guessing though. :)

If the power of the self evident truths are greater than the corrupt power of tyranny, then we aren't at war with an opposing flesh and blood but with the principality and powers of our own irresponsibility.
Being an American can at times be quite painful. Most of us would rather choose to be a tyrant than have to burden ourselves with our national Civil Purpose.

Truth Warrior
05-27-2008, 04:03 PM
If the power of the self evident truths are greater than the corrupt power of tyranny, then we aren't at war with an opposing flesh and blood but with the principality and powers of our own irresponsibility.
Being an American can at times be quite painful. Most of us would rather choose to be a tyrant than have to burden ourselves with our national Civil Purpose.
Whatever! I just want them out of my life, off my back, and out of my pocket. :rolleyes:

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-27-2008, 04:29 PM
Whatever! I just want them out of my life, off my back, and out of my pocket. :rolleyes:

Okay. Try to look at the issue in another way. It isn't that we just distrust Obama in whether he is an American first or not. He is just the eloquent mouthpiece to a larger platform after all. So, we don't just question his intentions but the hundreds or even thousands of people standing behind him running his campaign. I question their intentions even more than I do his, in fact.
So, this brings us to Dr. Ron Paul. I think he has great intentions because he often says things that go against what seems to be his best interests in regards to winning the campaign. Dr. Ron Paul serves as an excellent roll model to this nation's youth as they see through him a clear portal to the U.S. Constitution. But what about the intentions of the Americans standing behind Dr. Ron Paul? How good are our intentions? How good are our hearts?
I think we need to purify our hearts actually. That is certainly Dr. Ron Paul's hope that we would become not only an American party with selfish interests but a party with good intentions and good hearts.

Truth Warrior
05-27-2008, 05:35 PM
Okay. Try to look at the issue in another way. It isn't that we just distrust Obama in whether he is an American first or not. He is just the eloquent mouthpiece to a larger platform after all. So, we don't just question his intentions but the hundreds or even thousands of people standing behind him running his campaign. I question their intentions even more than I do his, in fact.
So, this brings us to Dr. Ron Paul. I think he has great intentions because he often says things that go against what seems to be his best interests in regards to winning the campaign. Dr. Ron Paul serves as an excellent roll model to this nation's youth as they see through him a clear portal to the U.S. Constitution. But what about the intentions of the Americans standing behind Dr. Ron Paul? How good are our intentions? How good are our hearts?
I think we need to purify our hearts actually. That is certainly Dr. Ron Paul's hope that we would become not only an American party with selfish interests but a party with good intentions and good hearts.
The road to HELL is paved with "good intentions and good hearts".

F O R G E T _I T !

We're way past the platitudes and the phony "feel goods" now. :rolleyes:

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-27-2008, 06:01 PM
The road to HELL is paved with "good intentions and good hearts".

F O R G E T _I T !

We're way past the platitudes and the phony "feel goods" now. :rolleyes:

So, you don't think that the people standing behind Dr. Ron Paul have good intentions but selfish ones just like the people standing behind Hillary, Obama and McCain? Hmm . . . strange how we arrive at these kinds of conclusions.

Truth Warrior
05-28-2008, 04:01 AM
So, you don't think that the people standing behind Dr. Ron Paul have good intentions but selfish ones just like the people standing behind Hillary, Obama and McCain? Hmm . . . strange how we arrive at these kinds of conclusions.

good intentions suck!
selfish ones suck!
Hillary sucks!
Obama sucks!
McCain sucks!

Ron Paul, pretty :cool:!

"how we arrive at these kinds of conclusions" sucks!

"Plan 9 ( step program ) From Outer Space" Worst movie ever!. :p And sucks!

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-28-2008, 08:33 AM
good intentions suck!
selfish ones suck!
Hillary sucks!
Obama sucks!
McCain sucks!

Ron Paul, pretty :cool:!

"how we arrive at these kinds of conclusions" sucks!

"Plan 9 ( step program ) From Outer Space" Worst movie ever!. :p And sucks!

Once again, if the power of the self evident truths are greater than the corrupt power of tyranny, then we aren't at war with an opposing flesh and blood but with the principality and powers of our own irresponsibility.
After all, the uniqueness in our government isn't how it is based on the complexity of a political science, as Marxism is, but in how it is based on the simplicity of the self evident truths which were established on the foundation of the metaphysical science of natural law. So, our government was not in the business of we the people "becoming" citizens by the "moving us around" -- as takes place in Marxism; but, our government was in the business of we the people "being" citizens by establishing undeniable "self evident truths" which reduced "inalienbly" in us to be imprinted as "natural rights" on the conscience of our human souls.
In other words, these self evident and inalienable truths have been worked out to become as natural rigths greater than even an ideal so they exist as true beyond all questions, challenges or disputes.
These self evident and inalienable truths have established a Civil Purpose in the U.S. Constitution. This Civil Purpose ideally sits all Americans at the same dinner table not by establishing liberty but by regulating it even to the point that the master has had to be bound to remain at the table while the discouraged slave has had to be granted liberty to come.

Truth Warrior
05-28-2008, 08:56 AM
Once again, if the power of the self evident truths are greater than the corrupt power of tyranny, then we aren't at war with an opposing flesh and blood but with the principality and powers of our own irresponsibility.
After all, the uniqueness in our government isn't how it is based on the complexity of a political science, as Marxism is, but in how it is based on the simplicity of the self evident truths which were established on the foundation of the metaphysical science of natural law. So, our government was not in the business of we the people "becoming" citizens by the "moving us around" -- as takes place in Marxism; but, our government was in the business of we the people "being" citizens by establishing undeniable "self evident truths" which reduced "inalienbly" in us to be imprinted as "natural rights" on the conscience of our human souls.
In other words, these self evident and inalienable truths have been worked out to become as natural rigths greater than even an ideal so they exist as true beyond all questions, challenges or disputes.
These self evident and inalienable truths have established a Civil Purpose in the U.S. Constitution. This Civil Purpose ideally sits all Americans at the same dinner table not by establishing liberty but by regulating it even to the point that the master has had to be bound to remain at the table while the discouraged slave has had to be granted liberty to come.
Do you really talk this way or is it just the way that you choose to write? :rolleyes:

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-28-2008, 09:56 AM
Do you really talk this way or is it just the way that you choose to write? :rolleyes:

I will make an attempt to dumb it down even further.

Truth Warrior
05-28-2008, 10:01 AM
I will make an attempt to dumb it down even further. Not an issue of dumbing down, merely one of simplicity. clarity and ( hopefully ) brevity. :rolleyes: You really do need a very good editor.

I'll just bet that you are just a real riot at parties. :D

If you can't beat 'em with the facts, then just baffle 'em with BS.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-28-2008, 10:16 AM
Not an issue of dumbing down, merely one of simplicity. clarity and ( hopefully ) brevity. :rolleyes:

I'll just bet that you are just a real riot at parties. :D

This is an issue of dumbing down. What I am discussing here would easily interest most college professors. What really bothers me is that I clearly claim not to be a legal expert in matters regarding legal precedents. The point you don't seem to get is that I rarely bicker about political issues. As a novice, I just choose not to be a lunatic or act like I'm qualified enough to argue like one. As an expert citizen primarily, the only important political issue to me is the single holistic one involving the U.S. Constitution. So, I either try to stick to the science in the American system or I meditate on the empty significance of air.

Truth Warrior
05-28-2008, 10:19 AM
This is an issue of dumbing down. What I am discussing here would easily interest most college professors. What really bothers me is that I clearly claim not to be a legal expert in matters regarding legal precedents. The point you don't seem to get is that I rarely bicker about political issues. As a novice, I just choose not to be a lunatic or act like I'm qualified enough to argue like one. As an expert citizen primarily, the only important political issue to me is the single holistic one involving the U.S. Constitution. So, I either try to stick to the science in the American system; or, I meditate on the empty significance of air.
Stick with the air. the other is not your forte.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-28-2008, 11:03 AM
Stick with the air. the other is not your forte.

Being popular has never been my forte. See, some of us are born with this natural ability while some of us aren't. Take the early Federalists for example. They already held a really popular position at the national dinner table so a "bill of rights" would not have been in their best interest. In fact, implementing such rights would have been adverse to their position at the dinner table in that it would enhance the position of the lessors at the table.
So, the Federalists wanted to ammend the Constitution by taking away the "bill of rights."

Truth Warrior
05-28-2008, 11:12 AM
Being popular has never been my forte. See, some of us are born with this natural ability while some of us aren't. Take the early Federalists for example. They already held a really popular position at the national dinner table so a "bill of rights" would not have been in their best interest. In fact, implementing such rights would have been adverse to their position at the dinner table in that it would enhance the position of the lessors at the table.
So, the Federalists wanted to ammend the Constitution by taking away the "bill of rights."
The "Bill of Rights" was a desperate last minute concession, by the Federalists, in order to get the friggin' Constitution approved by the minimally required 9 state "conventions", and thereby accomplish their illegal and unauthorized coup on the Articles of Confederation.

Like I said, NOT your forte. :p

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-28-2008, 11:20 AM
The "Bill of Rights" was a desperate last minute concession, by the Federalists, in oder to get the friggin' Constitution approved by the minimally required 9 state "conventions", and thereby accomplish their illegal and unauthorized coup on the Articles of Confederation.

Like I said, NOT your forte. :p

If they were alive today, our founding fathers would kick your antagonistic ass.:cool:

ARealConservative
05-28-2008, 11:31 AM
If they were alive today, our founding fathers would kick your antagonistic ass.:cool:

:D

Truth Warrior
05-28-2008, 11:36 AM
If they were alive today, our founding fathers would kick your antagonistic ass.:cool:

There ya go, human. :)

Nope, TJ would be on MY side. :D They were just scared shitless over TJ's possible influence and opposition. "We'd better wait until he's in Paris, before we try and do this "secret" evil, and pull this POS off".

BTW, are you a Freemason too? :p

Got any new possible forte candidates, anywhere on the horizon? :D

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-28-2008, 11:45 AM
There ya go, human. :)

Nope, TJ would be on my side. :D They were just scared shitless over TJ's possible influence and opposition. "We'd better wait until he's in Paris, before we try and do this "secret" evil, and pull this POS off".

BTW, are you a Freemason too?

Got any new possible forte candidates, anywhere on the horizon? :D

Oh. I get it finally. So you are one of those liberal fellows out there who believe our founding fathers were normal guys? This explains why you feel the Constitution is nothing more than pagan opinions expressed by Western European barbarians rather than a formal culture which supercedes all others.

Truth Warrior
05-28-2008, 11:53 AM
Oh. I get it finally. So you are one of those liberal fellows out there who believe our founding fathers were normal guys? This explains why you feel the Constitution is nothing more than pagan opinions expressed by Western European barbarians rather than a formal culture which supercedes all others.
Nope, libertarian, but just keep on trying to understand, though. :rolleyes:

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-28-2008, 12:01 PM
Nope, libertarian, but just keep on trying to understand, though. :rolleyes:

I see. What does this have to do with the 9 steps of recovery?

Truth Warrior
05-28-2008, 12:20 PM
I see. What does this have to do with the 9 steps of recovery?
Recovery of what, worth recovering? :rolleyes:

Have you even READ "The Revolution: A Manifesto"?

What hath the Constitution wrought? :rolleyes:

"By their fruits, ye shall know them." :p

( Maybe I could just "dumb down" this, for you some. ) :D

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-28-2008, 12:53 PM
Recovery of what, worth recovering? :rolleyes:

Have you even READ "The Revolution: A Manifesto"?

What hath the Constitution wrought? :rolleyes:

"By their fruits, ye shall know them." :p

( Maybe I could just "dumb down" this, for you some. ) :D

Sorry, I have a difficult time comprehending your irreverent style.

I'm going to devote a chapter of my book putting Dr. Ron Paul's book in perspective.

What hath the Constitution wrought? I assume this question is rhetorical.

My 2 sons are lazy as hell.

Yes. Try using only happy face icons next time.

Truth Warrior
05-28-2008, 01:06 PM
Sorry, I have a difficult time comprehending your irreverent style.
I reserve my reverence for those deserving of my reverence. Not too many. Forget "style comprehension". Just focus on the words.
I'm going to devote a chapter of my book putting Dr. Ron Paul's book in perspective.
Gee, I can hardly wait ....... nor even imagine! :rolleyes:
What hath the Constitution wrought? I assume this question is rhetorical.
Nope! Erroneous assumption. Tyranny and Leviathan!
My 2 sons are lazy as hell.
Reflections on your parenting skills? My two are just Aces! :D
Yes. Try using only happy face icons next time.
When you write "happy face" stuff, I just may. But don't count on it though.


"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" .... but first it will really tick you off. :)

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-28-2008, 02:01 PM
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" .... but first it will really tick you off. :)

Before we can hope to advance our level of comprehension to that of a bat, a rat, a squirrel or a rabbit, we first need to realize we are thinking on the level of a mouse -- A statement written on a note found in OJ Simpsons shirt pocket right after he was found buried head first in the sand trap of a golf course with only the bottoms of his shoes appearing to stick up.

Truth Warrior
05-28-2008, 02:08 PM
Before we can hope to advance our level of comprehension to that of a bat, a rat, a squirrel or a rabbit, we first need to realize we are thinking on the level of a mouse -- A statement written on a note found in OJ Simpsons shirt pocket right after he was found buried head first in the sand trap of a golf course with only the bottoms of his shoes appearing to stick up. Many are.

Some are not! :) Not nearly enough, damn it, by a looooong shot.

I blame government schools, by design, and snoozing parents, for the severe and critical shortages.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-28-2008, 02:17 PM
Many are.

Some are not! :) Not nearly enough, damn it, by a looooong shot.

I blame government schools, by design, and snoozing parents, for the severe and critical shortages.

Just when you think you have the moose by the horns and under control, out from the blue comes the most unexected of head shots -- Condoleezza Rice after getting hit upside the head by Rockey the Squirrel while giving an interview as to why she prefers white men.

Truth Warrior
05-28-2008, 02:28 PM
Just when you think you have the moose by the horns and under control, out from the blue comes the most unexected of head shots -- Condoleezza Rice after getting hit upside the head by Rockey the Squirrel while giving an interview as to why she prefers white men.

Gee, and how else am I going to know who NOT to vote for this time? ( ALL of them.) And why NOT? ( It doesn't matter. )

http://www.voluntaryist.com/

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-28-2008, 03:25 PM
Gee, and how else am I going to know who NOT to vote for this time? ( ALL of them.) And why NOT? ( It doesn't matter. )

http://www.voluntaryist.com/

Though it would be wonderful to discuss the greatness of the American political system while fishing, the ideal goal would be to discuss fishing -- Uncle Emanuel Watkins.

Truth Warrior
05-28-2008, 03:49 PM
Though it would be wonderful to discuss the greatness of the American political system while fishing, the ideal goal would be to discuss fishing -- Uncle Emanuel Watkins.

"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-28-2008, 05:10 PM
"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Truth Warrior
05-28-2008, 05:38 PM
"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes.

"When I first came here [Congress] twenty years ago, I was a libertarian. a follower of Goldwater. After being here twenty years, its enough to make anyone an anarcho-libertarian." - Congressman Phil Crane (R-IL), C-SPAN, October 3, 1990.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-29-2008, 09:43 AM
"When I first came here [Congress] twenty years ago, I was a libertarian. a follower of Goldwater. After being here twenty years, its enough to make anyone an anarcho-libertarian." - Congressman Phil Crane (R-IL), C-SPAN, October 3, 1990.

The power of the self evident and alienable truths are supposed to supercede the corrupt power of tyranny. These truths empower the people not divide them into political factions. This type of self evident truth serves as a foundation of a formal culture after all, one which supercedes all past traditions and possible future occurences. As John Locke would argue, these truths even reduce to be inalienably imprinted as natural rights on the conscience of our American souls. The power of our government ushers forth from the concreteness of these undeniable truths not from the corrupt power of a constantly changing tyranny.

This new "formal culture" does not hinder our lessor cultures but empowers us as diverse Americans by bringing every culture to the dinner table. The subtlety expressed here though is how we aren't positioned at the table as a classless Marxist society -- we aren't positioned equally as boy-girl or as black-white; rather, we are positioned ideally at the same dinner table with the greatest king and the least untouchable.

Our formal culture does not dispense mindless liberty but regulates it meaningfully. As a Hispanic American master class has been bound to sit at the same dinner table as a Hispanic American slave class, an African American master class sits at the same dinner table with a freed African American slave class. We all sit at the same dinner table in the United States because while a state of Texas master class is bound to sit at the same dinner table with its slave class, a city of Miami, Florida master class sits at the same dinner table with a freed city of Miami, Florida slave class.

One might ponder why a Native American would desire to live in a reservation rather than outside of it by adopting this greater formal culture.

We should never tolerate any less than this formal culture for such would amount to tyranny.

Truth Warrior
05-29-2008, 09:57 AM
The power of the self evident and alienable truths are supposed to supercede the corrupt power of tyranny. These truths are supposed to empower the people not divide them into political factions. This type of self evident truth serves as a foundation of a formal culture after all, one which supercedes all past traditions and possible future occurences. As John Locke would argue, these truths even reduce to be inalienably imprinted as natural rights on the conscience of our American souls. The power of our government ushers forth from the concreteness of these undeniable truths not from the corrupt power of constantly changing tyranny.

This new "formal culture" does not hinder our lessor cultures but empowers us as diverse Americans by bringing every culture to the dinner table. The subtlety expressed here though is how we aren't positioned at the table as a classless Marxist society -- we aren't positioned equally as boy-girl or black-white; rather, we are positioned ideally at the same dinner table with the greatest king and the least untouchable.

Our formal culture does not dispense mindless liberty but regulates it meaningfully. As a Hispanic American master class has been bound to sit at the same dinner table as a Hispanic American slave class, an African American master class sits at the same dinner table with a freed African American slave class. We all sit at the same dinner table in the United States because while a state of Texas master class is bound to sit at the same dinner table with its slave class, a city of Miami, Florida master class sits at the same dinner table with a freed city of Miami, Florida slave class.

One might ponder why a Native American would desire to live in a reservation rather than outside of it by adopting this greater formal culture to become an American citizen.

We should never tolerate any less than this formal culture for such would amount to tyranny.
Nice "theory". :rolleyes: But they don't AND we do. :(

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-29-2008, 10:18 AM
Nice "theory". :rolleyes: But they don't AND we do. :(

Marxism is based on a theory of political science while the American system is based on a truth established by the science of natural law. So, Marxism is complex because it involves people "becoming" ruling citizens by manipulating them through the corruptness of a dynamic tyranny; while, the American system is simple because it involves people "being" ruling citizens by establishing them through a concrete, undeniable truth.

Truth Warrior
05-29-2008, 10:25 AM
Marxism is based on a theory of political science while the American system is based on a truth established by the science of natural law. So, Marxism is complex because it involves people "becoming" ruling citizens by manipulating them through the corruptness of a dynamic tyranny; while, the American system is simple because it involves people "being" ruling citizens by establishing them through a concrete, undeniable truth.
Funny, but I think of the Anti-Federalists as founding fathers too. Don't you?

Marxism is PURE BULLSHIT TOO. Complexity is the ESSENCE of the hustle and the con. :p

Perry
05-29-2008, 10:45 AM
Hi, my name is Emanuel and I am a worthless American citizen. As a worthless American citizen, I am rediculed by others who have significant pedigree cultures or dual citizenships.

Step 1: As a worthless American citizen who is losing my soul to tyranny, I confess that my government is no longer controlled by me.

Step 2: I have come to believe that no greater understanding is needed beyond comprehending that the corrupt power of tyranny is conquered ultimately by the greater power of the self evident truths.

Step 3: I have come to believe that even the least amongst us have natural rights imprinted inalienably on the conscience of their human souls.

Step 4: I hold our nation's true wealth to be in the U.S. Constitution while its Civil Purpose is greater in value than any legal counterfeit excremented out from it.

Step 5: While my life as a worthless soldier can be sacrificed for the sake of any menial legal precedent, I will give my life as a citizen in the militia for this nation's Civil Purpose.

Step 6: It is my belief that I am part of a nation of people, not of law makers, of lawyers, of judges, of bankers, of tyrants, of the press, of corporations, of professors, of physicians, of Free Masons, of insurance companies, of the intelligence community, of the military, of energy companies, of special interests, of billionaires, of millionaires et al.

Step 7: While local inventiveness solves problems in America, the zeal of Federal lobbying eats her up.

Step 8: While I am lowered to be a client regarding legal precedents, I am uplifted as a citizen regarding the Civil Purpose in the Constitution.

Step 9: I believe there is no greater purpose than this Civil Purpose: As liberty is granted to the discouraged untouchables to bring them to the dinner table, the king's authority is bound to remain at the same table.

Did you write this? If so I find this rather ironic as I was just thinking about making something like this a few weeks back although I was going to use the full twelve steps. What a coincidence.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-29-2008, 10:56 AM
Funny, but I think of the Anti-Federalists as founding fathers too. Don't you?

Marxism is PURE BULLSHIT TOO. Complexity is the ESSENCE of the con. :p

The sum of the parts together are greater than the whole of each individual. In other words, the self evident and inalienable truths existed outside of each individual mind of our founding fathers. If you don't believe this, then test the truths themselves.

I've come to realize that the people rule as a shepherd from the middle of the flock not at the head of it as Moses supposedly did. This is how a shepherd really rules his flock after all in that it is necessary for range. While it might be necessary for a shepherd to discourage the stronger sheep from running too far ahead of the flock, it might also be necessary to encourage the weaker sheep to come closer into it.

The leading sheep still steer the immediate direction of the flock while the shepherd shares in the overall direction that the flock will take.

As it is necessary for a shepherd to rule from the middle of the flock, it is likewise necessary for the American people to rule from the middle of the dinner table. We do this by regulating liberty by binding the master to remain at the same table while granting the slave the necessary liberties to come to it.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-29-2008, 11:03 AM
Did you write this? If so I find this rather ironic as I was just thinking about making something like this a few weeks back although I was going to use the full twelve steps. What a coincidence.

I did write it and likewise considered including 12 steps. But then I realized if a person can accept step 9 outright, they don't need to go through the first 8.

Truth Warrior
05-29-2008, 11:04 AM
The sum of the parts together are greater than the whole of each individual. In other words, the self evident and inalienable truths existed outside of each individual mind of our founding fathers. If you don't believe this, then test the truths themselves.

I've come to realize that the people rule as a shepherd from the middle of the flock not at the head of it as Moses supposedly did. This is how a shepherd really rules his flock after all in that it is necessary for range. While it might be necessary for a shepherd to discourage the stronger sheep from running too far ahead of the flock, it might also be necessary to encourage the weakened sheep to come closer into it.

The leading sheep still steer the immediate direction of the flock while the shepherd shares in the overall direction that the flock will take.

As it is necessary for a shepherd to rule from the middle of the flock, it is likewise necessary for the American people to rule from the middle of the dinner table. We do this by regulating liberty by binding the master to remain at the same table while granting the slave the necessary liberties to come to it.

"We the people ( lie and bullshit ),of the United States,( bullshit ) in order to form a more perfect union ( bullshit ), establish justice ( bullshit ), insure domestic tranquility ( bullshit ), provide for the common defense ( bullshit ), promote the general welfare ( bullshit ), and secure ( bullshit ) the blessings of liberty ( bullshit ) to ourselves ( bullshit ) and our posterity ( bullshit ), do ordain ( bullshit ) and establish ( bullshit ) this Constitution ( bullshit ) for ( bullshit ) the United States of America ( bullshit )."

And it's just down hill faster from there. Very obviously, all of the signs are present of a real "rush job 'in secret' ". :p

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-29-2008, 11:27 AM
"We the people ( lie and bullshit ),of the United States,( bullshit ) in order to form a more perfect union ( bullshit ), establish justice ( bullshit ), insure domestic tranquility ( bullshit ), provide for the common defense ( bullshit ), promote the general welfare ( bullshit ), and secure ( bullshit ) the blessings of liberty ( bullshit ) to ourselves ( bullshit ) and our posterity ( bullshit ), do ordain ( bullshit ) and establish ( bullshit ) this Constitution ( bullshit ) for ( bullshit ) the United States of America ( bullshit )."

And it's just down hill faster from there. Very obviously, all of the signs are present of a real "rush job 'in secret' ". :p

If you are a friend, we don't need an enemy.

Ozwest
05-29-2008, 11:33 AM
Hi, my name is Emanuel and I am a worthless American citizen. As a worthless American citizen, I am rediculed by others who have significant pedigree cultures or dual citizenships.

Step 1: As a worthless American citizen who is losing my soul to tyranny, I confess that my government is no longer controlled by me.

Step 2: I have come to believe that no greater understanding is needed beyond comprehending that the corrupt power of tyranny is conquered ultimately by the greater power of the self evident truths.

Step 3: I have come to believe that even the least amongst us have natural rights imprinted inalienably on the conscience of their human souls.

Step 4: I hold our nation's true wealth to be in the U.S. Constitution while its Civil Purpose is greater in value than any legal counterfeit excremented out from it.

Step 5: While my life as a worthless soldier can be sacrificed for the sake of any menial legal precedent, I will give my life as a citizen in the militia for this nation's Civil Purpose.

Step 6: It is my belief that I am part of a nation of people, not of law makers, of lawyers, of judges, of bankers, of tyrants, of the press, of corporations, of professors, of physicians, of Free Masons, of insurance companies, of the intelligence community, of the military, of energy companies, of special interests, of billionaires, of millionaires et al.

Step 7: While local inventiveness solves problems in America, the zeal of Federal lobbying eats her up.

Step 8: While I am lowered to be a client regarding legal precedents, I am uplifted as a citizen regarding the Civil Purpose in the Constitution.

Step 9: I believe there is no greater purpose than this Civil Purpose: As liberty is granted to the discouraged untouchables to bring them to the dinner table, the king's authority is bound to remain at the same table.

That took some thought.

Some confrontational thought.

I like it.

Power to you.

Truth Warrior
05-29-2008, 11:54 AM
If you are a friend, we don't need an enemy. Yeah I hear that a lot. Many, many tyrannical authoritarian statist lackeys, dupes, fellow travelers, lap dogs and apologists agree with you precisely and completely, with all due respect.

That's one way that I continue to validate and verify my positions and viewpoints.

Thanks! :)

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-29-2008, 01:20 PM
Yeah I hear that a lot. Many, many tyrannical authoritarian statist lackeys, dupes, fellow travelers, lap dogs and apologists agree with you precisely and completely.

That's one way that I continue to validate and verify my positions and viewpoints.

Thanks! :)

Who sits in over our nation as the law makers, the judges, the prosecuting attorneys and the defense attorneys? As the law makers establish our laws rightfully or wrongfully as legal precedents, the judges then qualify or disqualify them, the prosecuting attorneys argue for and against their qualification or disqualification and the defense attorneys likewise argue for and against their qualification or disqualication.
In the meantime, the people being ruled over, judged, prosecuted and defended are deemed clients. Likewise, the people sitting in the jury and in the audience of the courtroom are likewise deemed clients. Clients are not human beings on the level of citizens but are, legally speaking, sub human in that they are incompetant in matters concerning the law. So, consider that while most people in the world would consider themselves citizens, most actually live their lives as clients in relationship to the systems that rule over them.
Now, the American system is supposed to be different. Our founding fathers realized just how powerful tyranny can be in terms of the law making, judging, prosecuting and defending. Our founding father were treated as clients likewise by the king's legal system. So, they challenged the corrupt power of tyranny with the establishment of a greater power of self evident and inalienable truths.
This is where the line is drawn. One either supports the corrupt power of tyranny or they support a greater self evident and inalienable power of the people.

Truth Warrior
05-29-2008, 01:26 PM
Who sits in over our nation as the law makers, the judges, the prosecuting attorneys and the defense attorneys? As the law makers establish our laws rightfully or wrongfully as legal precedents, the judges then qualifies or disqualifies them, the prosecuting attorneys argue for and against their qualification or disqualification and the defense attorney likewise argues for and against their qualification or disqualication.
In the meantime, the people being ruled over, judged, prosecuted and defended are deemed clients. Likewise, the people sitting in the jury and in the audience of the courtroom are likewise deemed as clients. Clients are not human beings on the level of citizens but are, legally speaking, sub human in that they are incompetant in matters concerning the law. So, consider that while most people in the world would consider themselves citizens, most actually live their lives as clients in relationship to the systems that rule over them.
Now, the American system is supposed to be different. Our founding fathers realized just how powerful tyranny can be in terms of law making, judging, prosecuting and defending citizens to living the as inferior clients. Our founding father were treated to the king and the nation of England. So, they challenged the corrupt power of tyranny with the establishment of the greater power of self evident and inalienable truths.
This is where the line is drawn. One either support the corrupt power of tyranny or they support a greater self evident and inalienable power of the people.

"The 'system' is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!"

The D of I is NOT the precursor of the CONstitution. The CONstitution BETRAYS the American revolution.

Set the D of I and the CONstitution side by side and just READ them.

Ozwest
05-29-2008, 01:48 PM
"The 'system' is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!"


Move to Australia or New Zealand.

Truth Warrior
05-29-2008, 01:54 PM
Move to Australia or New Zealand. I detest socialism also.

America is still worth fighting for, the US government criminal gangs are not.

The NWO is coming your way, real soon too.

Ozwest
05-29-2008, 01:57 PM
I detest socialism also.

America is still worth fighting for, the US government criminal gangs are not.

The NWO is coming your way, real soon too.

Chill out.

I live in Wild Country.

We are the same size as America, but only have 20 million people.

Truth Warrior
05-29-2008, 02:00 PM
Chill out.

I live in Wild Country.

We are the same size as America, but only have 20 million people.

There's much more to it than that, for me.

The time may come, however.

Ozwest
05-29-2008, 02:02 PM
My State of Western Australia, could fit 4 or 5 Texas's in it, and the population would be hard-pressed for 2 million.

Ozwest
05-29-2008, 02:09 PM
Sorry for being a hard-ass,

But I'm kinda upset with America.

I lived there for 17 years. And you guys have lost the plot.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-29-2008, 02:55 PM
"The 'system' is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!"

The D of I is NOT the precursor of the CONstitution. The CONstitution BETRAYS the American revolution.

Set the D of I and the CONstitution side by side and just READ them.

When we don't hold Form over the informal, we don't hold Civil Purpose over legal precedence.

Ozwest
05-29-2008, 03:00 PM
When we don't hold Form over the informal, we don't hold Civil Purpose over legal precedence.

Blood oath!

How many Solicitors/Lawyers?

Do the right thing.

Don't be a presumptious asshole.

Ozwest
05-29-2008, 03:03 PM
Great legal procedure!

Let's follow the bouncing ball...

Ozwest
05-29-2008, 03:04 PM
1: Attorney General

Ozwest
05-29-2008, 03:06 PM
2: Habeus corpus

Ozwest
05-29-2008, 03:07 PM
3: Patriot act

Ozwest
05-29-2008, 03:10 PM
4: Guantanamo Bay

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-29-2008, 03:13 PM
Sorry for being a hard-ass,

But I'm kinda upset with America.

I lived there for 17 years. And you guys have lost the plot.

Hmm . . . We haven't had an American movement for some 17 years now when one considers only half of the former Bush Sr. administration to be part of the Reagan years.
I'm curious about whether Australia has a formal document like the Declaration of Independence divorcing itself from the tyranny of the king? This formal step was necessary before our founding fathers could "ordain" a new nation.
We do great in this nation when we head towards the direction of an ideal plot and do bad when we erode away from it.

Ozwest
05-29-2008, 03:17 PM
Hmm . . . We haven't had an American movement for some 17 years now when one considers only half of the former Bush Sr. administration to be part of the Reagan years.
I'm curious about whether Australia has a formal document like the Declaration of Independence divorcing itself from the tyranny of the king? This formal step was necessary before our founding fathers could "ordain" a new nation.
We do great in this nation when we head towards the direction of an ideal plot and do bad when we erode away from it.

I'm 49 years old my friend.

I Know how to "duck and cover."

Ozwest
05-29-2008, 03:24 PM
Hmm . . . We haven't had an American movement for some 17 years now when one considers only half of the former Bush Sr. administration to be part of the Reagan years.
I'm curious about whether Australia has a formal document like the Declaration of Independence divorcing itself from the tyranny of the king? This formal step was necessary before our founding fathers could "ordain" a new nation.
We do great in this nation when we head towards the direction of an ideal plot and do bad when we erode away from it.

To answer the second part of your question, to my chagrin, we are not a Republic.

We had a referendum on it several years ago and it was narrowly voted down.

I , and most Australians have no allegience to any Monarchy.

But we love our Parliamentary system of Government. It works.

Truth Warrior
05-29-2008, 04:11 PM
When we don't hold Form over the informal, we don't hold Civil Purpose over legal precedence.
Translation into English please.:rolleyes:

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-29-2008, 04:45 PM
Translation into English please.:rolleyes:

When one shoots for the form, one hits the informal. When one aims for the ideal, one acheives the practical. When one aims up at the sky, the arrow will fall to hit the apple in the tree.
However, when aiming at the apple in the tree, the arrow will always fall short of hitting the apple. When we have only the legal precedence of tyranny to shoot for, we become chronic losers who fall short of even acheiving the legitimate status of law abiding citizens. We then become judged as illegal and as less than ideal human beings before being sentenced to taxations, penalties, imprisonments and eventual enslavement. Eventually we will be employed strictly for the sake of responsibility while the significance of our thirst for happiness will become secondary.

Ozwest
05-29-2008, 04:57 PM
When one shoots for the form, one hits the informal. When one aims for the ideal, one acheives the practical. When one aims up at the sky, the arrow will fall to hit the apple in the tree.
However, when aiming at the apple in the tree, the arrow will always fall short of hitting the apple. When we have only the legal precedence of tyranny to shoot for, we become chronic losers who fall short of even acheiving the legitimate status of law abiding citizens. We then become judged as illegal and as less than ideal human beings before being sentenced to taxations, penalties, imprisonments and eventual enslavement. Eventually we will be employed strictly for the sake of responsibility while the significance of our thirst for happiness will become secondary.
That is a long winded way of saying you have no bollocks.

Truth Warrior
05-29-2008, 05:04 PM
When one shoots for the form, one hits the informal. When one aims for the ideal, one acheives the practical. When one aims up at the sky, the arrow will fall to hit the apple in the tree.
However, when aiming at the apple in the tree, the arrow will always fall short of hitting the apple. When we have only the legal precedence of tyranny to shoot for, we become chronic losers who fall short of even acheiving the legitimate status of law abiding citizens. We then become judged as illegal and as less than ideal human beings before being sentenced to taxations, penalties, imprisonments and eventual enslavement. Eventually we will be employed strictly for the sake of responsibility while the significance of our thirst for happiness will become secondary.
Apologies for asking. :rolleyes:

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-29-2008, 06:08 PM
That is a long winded way of saying you have no bollocks.

That is why I asked about the Australian system. The American system isn't based on a complex theory of political science where people "become" citizens by manipulating them around through the corrupt power of tyranny, as does Marxism, but on simple self evident and inalienable truths which establish the people as "being" citizens by the science of natural law. This power comes from a "formal" truth which is greater than the corrupt power of tyranny.

Ozwest
05-29-2008, 06:25 PM
That is why I asked about the Australian system. The American system isn't based on a complex theory of political science where people "become" citizens by manipulating them around through the corrupt power of tyranny, as does Marxism, but on simple self evident and inalienable truths which establish the people as "being" citizens by the science of natural law. This power comes from a "formal" truth which is greater than the corrupt power of tyranny.

We have a Parliamentary system of government.

It is not a perfect system, but for the most part, our politicians follow the electorates wishes.

We are a wealthy country. The average wage in my State is 73,000 pa.

The exchange rate is .96Aus.

We have free medical.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-29-2008, 07:11 PM
Apologies for asking. :rolleyes:

This is basic philosophy. Plato, who was taught for some 20 years on a street corner by the use of the "Socratic Teaching Method" -- commonly referred to as the "Dialectic" by Socrates -- later developed his own method of definition commonly referred to as a "Best Principled Statement" or as the overall "Theory of the Forms."

"Cogito ergo sum" -- I think therefore I am -- was proclaimed by Rene Descartes in 1644 as a best principled statement so he could establish a conclusion. Because "formal" logic -- Aristotle's method of definition -- had fallen out of favor after Galileo's persecution at the hands of the Catholic Church, Rene Descartes used Plato's theory to try to reestablish some kind of order of rational thought.

"Platonic Love" is also an expression of a best principled statement developed as a Christian term regarding a relationship after it has developed to "form." This type of inward, perfected love is expressed in well established marriages; whereas, a more outward, carnal love is expressed informally in less established marriages.

Plato developed his own definitive method to speed up Socrates' pesky method of endless questions. If Socrates were to ask his student the question "What are clothing, Plato?", Plato would work the answer out quickly by establishing "underwear" or "pajamas" as the most informal attire while he would establish "a tuxedo" or "a suit and tie" as the most formal attire. Plato might then develop the definition of "What are clothing?" to take into account the question of nakedness and so on.

mrsat_98
05-29-2008, 07:20 PM
I did write it and likewise considered including 12 steps. But then I realized if a person can accept step 9 outright, they don't need to go through the first 8.

All you twelve steppers forgot about step 13 the one where you go back to step 1.

So are we at step 13 or 1 ?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-29-2008, 08:58 PM
All you twelve steppers forgot about step 13 the one where you go back to step 1.

So are we at step 13 or 1 ?

Where is the sense of disperation? Where is the missing passion? Perhaps we need to understand how we are being cheated as Americans.

One way is to understand how Catholic Christians were once cheated by the Vatican as Americans are now being similarly cheated today by the Federal government.

Catholics were not allowed by the Vatican at one time to read any other Bible other than the Latin version which was a poor interpretation of the original scriptures. So, unless Catholics read Latin they could not worship the scriptures in the Bible instead having to worship the rituals in the Church meetings established by the Pope as God's authority in the Vatican.

Martin Luther not only took the trouble to read the Latin version of the bible thus isolating the legal precedents of the rituals of the Pope. So, by following some simple rules established by the Vatican to protest Catholic policy which involved nailing a paper of protest to a door, he eventually won for the Protestants the right to actually read, understand, pray about and worship the Holy scripture in the Bible.

As the Protestants began to realize how the Pope's authority had been a tyranny smothering over the formal truth in the Bible, the Catholic Preists in response to their protests claimed that the Holy scripture took no legal precedence over the rituals established by the Pope as God's legitimate authority.

This question of authority actually got so out of hand between the more liberal Protestants who supported the new found scripture in the bible and the conservative Priests and those remaining Catholics who still backed the rituals created by the authority of the Pope that heated bickering would break out during meetings.

As the worshipping of the formal Bible now takes precedence over the more informal worshipping of the legal precedent rituals created by the Pope, the formal self evident and inalienable truths in the formal documents created by our founding fathers should likewise take precedence over the similar legal precedents established outside of our Constituion by tyranny. If the legal precedents are the darkness causing us to lose our souls today, then the Civil Purpose in the Constitution is the light where we can find ourselves again as Americans.

So, the next time a lawyer argues that the formal documents have no legal precedence, kosherness or orthoxy, take it for what its worth. Such statements are about as significant as when Catholic Preists made the claim that the legal precedent rituals of the Pope supercede the Word of God in the Bible.

Carehn
05-29-2008, 09:25 PM
Good lord?!?!
What the hell what this thread about anyway?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-29-2008, 10:20 PM
Good lord?!?!
What the hell what this thread about anyway?

I am trying to establish that our founding fathers weren't Western European Barbarians who established a government based on petty pagan principles. So, I introduced a little bit of Plato, Socrates, Galileo and Descartes which was basic reading for our founding fathers back then while I also presented our Protestant heritage. Next I'm thinking about posting something about Aristotle perhaps, maybe something about our Puritan heritage and then something about the political scientist John Locke and the political philsopher Jean Rousseau.
If you would like to help, try posting a question to lead me into the topic (Ask a question like "What about Aristotle, John Locke and Jean Rousseau not to mention Immanuel Kant?" Or "What about our American Puritan heritage? What effect did Puritanism have on our secular culture regarding liberty?") Thanks.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-29-2008, 11:41 PM
That is a long winded way of saying you have no bollocks.

I would rather be an American without bollocks than a foreigner with them.

Truth Warrior
05-30-2008, 04:12 AM
This is basic philosophy. Plato, who was taught for some 20 years on a street corner by the use of the "Socratic Teaching Method" -- commonly referred to as the "Dialectic" by Socrates -- later developed his own method of definition commonly referred to as a "Best Principled Statement" or as the overall "Theory of the Forms."

"Cogito ergo sum" -- I think therefore I am -- was proclaimed by Rene Descartes in 1644 as a best principled statement so he could establish a conclusion. Because "formal" logic -- Aristotle's method of definition -- had fallen out of favor after Galileo's persecution at the hands of the Catholic Church, Rene Descartes used Plato's theory to try to reestablish some kind of order of rational thought.

"Platonic Love" is also an expression of a best principled statement developed as a Christian term regarding a relationship after it has developed to "form." This type of inward, perfected love is expressed in well established marriages; whereas, a more outward, carnal love is expressed informally in less established marriages.

Plato developed his own definitive method to speed up Socrates' pesky method of endless questions. If Socrates were to ask his student the question "What are clothing, Plato?", Plato would work the answer out quickly by establishing "underwear" or "pajamas" as the most informal attire while he would establish "a tuxedo" or "a suit and tie" as the most formal attire. Plato might then develop the definition of "What are clothing?" to take into account the question of nakedness and so on.
Oh, knock it off. You're just singing to the preacher, Dude.

A Platonist, or is that "neo"platonist? Geeze, I should have picked up on the clues. Next you'll probably be dragging out and spouting off about some mystical Hegelian gobbledygook or other. :p

You do know that pompous phony overblown pretentious arrogant "pseudo" intellectualism can only take you so far, don't you?

Ivory towers are just so archaic, obsolete, outdated, irrelevant and passé these days. :rolleyes:

Hey, I heard a rumor that "Philosophy for Dummies" Volume II, may be coming out soon. You may just want to pick up a copy.

Get REAL! :rolleyes:

Truth Warrior
05-30-2008, 08:34 AM
Anti-Federalist Papers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Anti-Federalist Papers are a collection of articles, written in opposition to the ratification of the 1787 United States Constitution. Unlike the Federalist Papers written in support of the Constitution, the authors of these articles, mostly operating under pseudonyms, were not engaged in a strictly organized project. Thus, unlike the Federalist Papers, it is a matter of opinion what writings specifically are included and in what order they are best presented. One notable presentation is that by Morton Borden, who collected 85 of the most significant papers and arranged them in an order closely resembling that of the 85 Federalist Papers, e.g. #10 in Borden's arrangement argues against Federalist No. 10. The most frequently cited modern collection, The Complete Anti-Federalist, was produced by Herbert Storing.

Major Anti-Federalist authors included Cato (likely George Clinton), Brutus (Robert Yates), Centinel (Samuel Bryan), and the Federal Farmer (either Melancton Smith, Richard Henry Lee, or Mercy Otis Warren). Speeches by Patrick Henry and Smith are often included as well.

One of the major points of the articles was the danger the new Constitution would bring without a statement of individual rights. Some of the Anti-Federalist concerns were addressed in the Bill of Rights, which was added later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist_Papers

Index to the Antifederalist Papers
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/

Antifederalist No. 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION: A DANGEROUS PLAN OF BENEFIT ONLY TO THE "ARISTOCRATICK COMBINATION"
Antifederalist No. 2 "WE HAVE BEEN TOLD OF PHANTOMS"
Antifederalist No. 3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT; WILL NOT ABATE FOREIGN INFLUENCE; DANGERS OF CIVIL WAR AND DESPOTISM
Antifederalist No. 4 FOREIGN WARS, CIVIL WARS, AND INDIAN WARS - THREE BUGBEARS
Antifederalist No. 5 SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND - A CASE IN POINT
Antifederalist No. 6 THE HOBGOBLINS OF ANARCHY AND DISSENSIONS AMONG THE STATES
Antifederalist No. 7 ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL LEAD TO CIVIL WAR
Antifederalist No. 8 "THE POWER VESTED IN CONGRESS OF SENDING TROOPS FOR SUPPRESSING INSURRECTIONS WILL ALWAYS ENABLE THEM TO STIFLE THE FIRST STRUGGLES OF FREEDOM"
Antifederalist No. 9 A CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT IS A TYRANNY
Antifederalist No. 10 ON THE PRESERVATION OF PARTIES, PUBLIC LIBERTY DEPENDS
Antifederalist No. 11 UNRESTRICTED POWER OVER COMMERCE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
Antifederalist No. 12 HOW WILL THE NEW GOVERNMENT RAISE MONEY?
Antifederalist No. 13 THE EXPENSE OF THE NEW GOVERNMENT
Antifederalist No. 14 EXTENT OF TERRITORY UNDER CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT TOO LARGE TO PRESERVE LIBERTY OR PROTECT PROPERTY
Antifederalist No. 15 RHODE ISLAND IS RIGHT!
Antifederalist No. 16 EUROPEANS ADMIRE AND FEDERALISTS DECRY THE PRESENT SYSTEM
Antifederalist No. 17 FEDERALIST POWER WILL ULTIMATELY SUBVERT STATE AUTHORITY
Antifederalist No. 18-20 WHAT DOES HISTORY TEACH? (PART 1)
Antifederalist No. 18-20 WHAT DOES HISTORY TEACH? (PART II)
Antifederalist No. 21 WHY THE ARTICLES FAILED
Antifederalist No. 22 ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION SIMPLY REQUIRES AMENDMENTS, PARTICULARLY FOR COMMERCIAL POWER AND JUDICIAL POWER; CONSTITUTION GOES TOO FAR
Antifederalist No. 23 CERTAIN POWERS NECESSARY FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, CAN AND SHOULD BE LIMITED
Antifederalist No. 24 OBJECTIONS TO A STANDING ARMY (PART I)
Antifederalist No. 25 OBJECTIONS TO A STANDING ARMY (PART II)
Antifederalist No. 26 THE USE OF COERCION BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT (PART 1)
Antifederalist No. 27 THE USE OF COERCION BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT (PART 2)
Antifederalist No. 28 THE USE OF COERCION BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT (PART III)
Antifederalist No. 29 OBJECTIONS TO NATIONAL CONTROL OF THE MILITIA
Antifederalist No. 30-31 A VIRGINIA ANTIFEDERALIST ON THE ISSUE OF TAXATION
Antifederalist No. 32 FEDERAL TAXATION AND THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED POWERS (PART I)
Antifederalist No. 33 FEDERAL TAXATION AND THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED POWERS (PART II)
Antifederalist No. 34 THE PROBLEM OF CONCURRENT TAXATION
Antifederalist No. 35 FEDERAL TAXING POWER MUST BE RESTRAINED
Antifederalist No. 36 REPRESENTATION AND INTERNAL TAXATION
Antifederalist No. 37 FACTIONS AND THE CONSTITUTION
Antifederalist No. 38 SOME REACTIONS TO FEDERALIST ARGUMENTS
Antifederalist No. 39 APPEARANCE AND REALITY-THE FORM IS FEDERAL; THE EFFECT IS NATIONAL
Antifederalist No. 40 ON THE MOTIVATIONS AND AUTHORITY OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS
Antifederalist No. 41-43 (Part 1) Richard Henry Lee "THE QUANTITY OF POWER THE UNION MUST POSSESS IS ONE THING; THE MODE OF EXERCISING THE POWERS GIVEN IS QUITE A DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION"
Antifederalist No. 41-43 (Part II) (Richard Henry Lee) "THE QUANTITY OF POWER THE UNION MUST POSSESS IS ONE THING; THE MODE OF EXERCISING THE POWERS GIVEN IS QUITE A DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION"
Antifederalist No. 44 WHAT CONGRESS CAN DO; WHAT A STATE CAN NOT
Antifederalist No. 45 POWERS OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT DANGEROUS TO STATE GOVERNMENTS; NEW YORK AS AN EXAMPLE
Antifederalist No. 46 "WHERE THEN IS THE RESTRAINT?"
Antifederalist No. 47 "BALANCE" OF DEPARTMENTS NOT ACHIEVED UNDER NEW CONSTITUTION
Antifederalist No. 48 NO SEPARATION OF DEPARTMENTS RESULTS IN NO RESPONSIBILITY
Antifederalist No. 49 ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS (PART 1)
Antifederalist No. 50 ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS (PART 2)
Antifederalist No. 51 DO CHECKS AND BALANCES REALLY SECURE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE?
Antifederalist No. 52 ON THE GUARANTEE OF CONGRESSIONAL BIENNIAL ELECTIONS
Antifederalist No. 53 A PLEA FOR THE RIGHT OF RECALL
Antifederalist No. 54 APPORTIONMENT AND SLAVERY: NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN VIEWS
Antifederalist No. 55 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 1)
Antifederalist No. 56 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 2)
Antifederalist No. 57 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 3)
Antifederalist No. 58 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 4)
Antifederalist No. 59 THE DANGER OF CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL OF ELECTIONS
Antifederalist No. 60 WILL THE CONSTITUTION PROMOTE THE INTERESTS OF FAVORITE CLASSES?
Antifederalist No. 61 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE ELECTION OF CONGRESSMEN
Antifederalist No. 62 ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE (PART 1)
Antifederalist No. 63 ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE (PART 2)
Antifederalist No. 64 ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE (PART 3)
Antifederalist No. 65 ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE (PART 4)
Antifederalist No. 66 From North Carolina
Antifederalist No. 67 VARIOUS FEARS CONCERNING THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Antifederalist No. 68 ON THE MODE OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT
Antifederalist No. 69 THE CHARACTER OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE
Antifederalist No. 70 THE POWERS AND DANGEROUS POTENTIALS OF HIS ELECTED MAJESTY
Antifederalist No. 71 THE PRESIDENTIAL TERM OF OFFICE
Antifederalist No. 72 ON THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE; ON REELIGIBILITY OF THE PRESIDENT
Antifederalist No. 73 DOES THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO POWER INFRINGE ON THE SEPARATION OF DEPARTMENTS?
Antifederalist No. 74 THE PRESIDENT AS MILITARY KING
Antifederalist No. 75 A NOTE PROTESTING THE TREATY-MAKING PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
Antifederalist Nos. 76-77 AN ANTIFEDERALIST VIEW OF THE APPOINTING POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
Antifederalist Nos. 78-79 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 1)
Antifederalist No. 80 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 2)
Antifederalist No. 81 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 3)
Antifederalist No. 82 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 4)
Antifederalist No. 83 THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY AND THE ISSUE OF TRIAL BY JURY
Antifederalist No. 84 ON THE LACK OF A BILL OF RIGHTS
Antifederalist No. 85 CONCLUDING REMARKS: EVILS UNDER CONFEDERATION EXAGGERATED; CONSTITUTION MUST BE DRASTICALLY REVISED BEFORE ADOPTION

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-30-2008, 10:19 AM
Oh, knock it off. You're just singing to the preacher, Dude.

A Platonist, or is that "neo"platonist? Geeze, I should have picked up on the clues. Next you'll probably be dragging out and spouting off about some mystical Hegelian gobbledygook or other. :p

You do know that pompous phony overblown pretentious arrogant "pseudo" intellectualism can only take you so far, don't you?

Ivory towers are just so archaic, obsolete, outdated, irrelevant and passé these days. :rolleyes:

Hey, I heard a rumor that "Philosophy for Dummies" Volume II, may be coming out soon. You may just want to pick up a copy.

Get REAL! :rolleyes:

You seem offended when it was I who said that the American system isn't complex. It isn't complex as a political science because it doesn't attempt to manipulate people about with the corrupt power of tyranny as does Marxism; rather, it is simple because it establishes people with concrete truths as "being" citizens. These self evident and inalienable truths are concrete because they are not based on a political science but were established by the science of natural law.
If you don't like discussing Plato, then quit pretending that the American system of government was created by Barbarians using pagan principles.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-30-2008, 10:35 AM
Anti-Federalist Papers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Anti-Federalist Papers are a collection of articles, written in opposition to the ratification of the 1787 United States Constitution. Unlike the Federalist Papers written in support of the Constitution, the authors of these articles, mostly operating under pseudonyms, were not engaged in a strictly organized project. Thus, unlike the Federalist Papers, it is a matter of opinion what writings specifically are included and in what order they are best presented. One notable presentation is that by Morton Borden, who collected 85 of the most significant papers and arranged them in an order closely resembling that of the 85 Federalist Papers, e.g. #10 in Borden's arrangement argues against Federalist No. 10. The most frequently cited modern collection, The Complete Anti-Federalist, was produced by Herbert Storing.

Major Anti-Federalist authors included Cato (likely George Clinton), Brutus (Robert Yates), Centinel (Samuel Bryan), and the Federal Farmer (either Melancton Smith, Richard Henry Lee, or Mercy Otis Warren). Speeches by Patrick Henry and Smith are often included as well.

One of the major points of the articles was the danger the new Constitution would bring without a statement of individual rights. Some of the Anti-Federalist concerns were addressed in the Bill of Rights, which was added later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist_Papers

Index to the Antifederalist Papers
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/

Antifederalist No. 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION: A DANGEROUS PLAN OF BENEFIT ONLY TO THE "ARISTOCRATICK COMBINATION"
Antifederalist No. 2 "WE HAVE BEEN TOLD OF PHANTOMS"
Antifederalist No. 3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT; WILL NOT ABATE FOREIGN INFLUENCE; DANGERS OF CIVIL WAR AND DESPOTISM
Antifederalist No. 4 FOREIGN WARS, CIVIL WARS, AND INDIAN WARS - THREE BUGBEARS
Antifederalist No. 5 SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND - A CASE IN POINT
Antifederalist No. 6 THE HOBGOBLINS OF ANARCHY AND DISSENSIONS AMONG THE STATES
Antifederalist No. 7 ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL LEAD TO CIVIL WAR
Antifederalist No. 8 "THE POWER VESTED IN CONGRESS OF SENDING TROOPS FOR SUPPRESSING INSURRECTIONS WILL ALWAYS ENABLE THEM TO STIFLE THE FIRST STRUGGLES OF FREEDOM"
Antifederalist No. 9 A CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT IS A TYRANNY
Antifederalist No. 10 ON THE PRESERVATION OF PARTIES, PUBLIC LIBERTY DEPENDS
Antifederalist No. 11 UNRESTRICTED POWER OVER COMMERCE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
Antifederalist No. 12 HOW WILL THE NEW GOVERNMENT RAISE MONEY?
Antifederalist No. 13 THE EXPENSE OF THE NEW GOVERNMENT
Antifederalist No. 14 EXTENT OF TERRITORY UNDER CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT TOO LARGE TO PRESERVE LIBERTY OR PROTECT PROPERTY
Antifederalist No. 15 RHODE ISLAND IS RIGHT!
Antifederalist No. 16 EUROPEANS ADMIRE AND FEDERALISTS DECRY THE PRESENT SYSTEM
Antifederalist No. 17 FEDERALIST POWER WILL ULTIMATELY SUBVERT STATE AUTHORITY
Antifederalist No. 18-20 WHAT DOES HISTORY TEACH? (PART 1)
Antifederalist No. 18-20 WHAT DOES HISTORY TEACH? (PART II)
Antifederalist No. 21 WHY THE ARTICLES FAILED
Antifederalist No. 22 ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION SIMPLY REQUIRES AMENDMENTS, PARTICULARLY FOR COMMERCIAL POWER AND JUDICIAL POWER; CONSTITUTION GOES TOO FAR
Antifederalist No. 23 CERTAIN POWERS NECESSARY FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, CAN AND SHOULD BE LIMITED
Antifederalist No. 24 OBJECTIONS TO A STANDING ARMY (PART I)
Antifederalist No. 25 OBJECTIONS TO A STANDING ARMY (PART II)
Antifederalist No. 26 THE USE OF COERCION BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT (PART 1)
Antifederalist No. 27 THE USE OF COERCION BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT (PART 2)
Antifederalist No. 28 THE USE OF COERCION BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT (PART III)
Antifederalist No. 29 OBJECTIONS TO NATIONAL CONTROL OF THE MILITIA
Antifederalist No. 30-31 A VIRGINIA ANTIFEDERALIST ON THE ISSUE OF TAXATION
Antifederalist No. 32 FEDERAL TAXATION AND THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED POWERS (PART I)
Antifederalist No. 33 FEDERAL TAXATION AND THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED POWERS (PART II)
Antifederalist No. 34 THE PROBLEM OF CONCURRENT TAXATION
Antifederalist No. 35 FEDERAL TAXING POWER MUST BE RESTRAINED
Antifederalist No. 36 REPRESENTATION AND INTERNAL TAXATION
Antifederalist No. 37 FACTIONS AND THE CONSTITUTION
Antifederalist No. 38 SOME REACTIONS TO FEDERALIST ARGUMENTS
Antifederalist No. 39 APPEARANCE AND REALITY-THE FORM IS FEDERAL; THE EFFECT IS NATIONAL
Antifederalist No. 40 ON THE MOTIVATIONS AND AUTHORITY OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS
Antifederalist No. 41-43 (Part 1) Richard Henry Lee "THE QUANTITY OF POWER THE UNION MUST POSSESS IS ONE THING; THE MODE OF EXERCISING THE POWERS GIVEN IS QUITE A DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION"
Antifederalist No. 41-43 (Part II) (Richard Henry Lee) "THE QUANTITY OF POWER THE UNION MUST POSSESS IS ONE THING; THE MODE OF EXERCISING THE POWERS GIVEN IS QUITE A DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION"
Antifederalist No. 44 WHAT CONGRESS CAN DO; WHAT A STATE CAN NOT
Antifederalist No. 45 POWERS OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT DANGEROUS TO STATE GOVERNMENTS; NEW YORK AS AN EXAMPLE
Antifederalist No. 46 "WHERE THEN IS THE RESTRAINT?"
Antifederalist No. 47 "BALANCE" OF DEPARTMENTS NOT ACHIEVED UNDER NEW CONSTITUTION
Antifederalist No. 48 NO SEPARATION OF DEPARTMENTS RESULTS IN NO RESPONSIBILITY
Antifederalist No. 49 ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS (PART 1)
Antifederalist No. 50 ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS (PART 2)
Antifederalist No. 51 DO CHECKS AND BALANCES REALLY SECURE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE?
Antifederalist No. 52 ON THE GUARANTEE OF CONGRESSIONAL BIENNIAL ELECTIONS
Antifederalist No. 53 A PLEA FOR THE RIGHT OF RECALL
Antifederalist No. 54 APPORTIONMENT AND SLAVERY: NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN VIEWS
Antifederalist No. 55 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 1)
Antifederalist No. 56 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 2)
Antifederalist No. 57 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 3)
Antifederalist No. 58 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 4)
Antifederalist No. 59 THE DANGER OF CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL OF ELECTIONS
Antifederalist No. 60 WILL THE CONSTITUTION PROMOTE THE INTERESTS OF FAVORITE CLASSES?
Antifederalist No. 61 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE ELECTION OF CONGRESSMEN
Antifederalist No. 62 ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE (PART 1)
Antifederalist No. 63 ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE (PART 2)
Antifederalist No. 64 ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE (PART 3)
Antifederalist No. 65 ON THE ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE SENATE (PART 4)
Antifederalist No. 66 From North Carolina
Antifederalist No. 67 VARIOUS FEARS CONCERNING THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Antifederalist No. 68 ON THE MODE OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT
Antifederalist No. 69 THE CHARACTER OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE
Antifederalist No. 70 THE POWERS AND DANGEROUS POTENTIALS OF HIS ELECTED MAJESTY
Antifederalist No. 71 THE PRESIDENTIAL TERM OF OFFICE
Antifederalist No. 72 ON THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE; ON REELIGIBILITY OF THE PRESIDENT
Antifederalist No. 73 DOES THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO POWER INFRINGE ON THE SEPARATION OF DEPARTMENTS?
Antifederalist No. 74 THE PRESIDENT AS MILITARY KING
Antifederalist No. 75 A NOTE PROTESTING THE TREATY-MAKING PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
Antifederalist Nos. 76-77 AN ANTIFEDERALIST VIEW OF THE APPOINTING POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
Antifederalist Nos. 78-79 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 1)
Antifederalist No. 80 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 2)
Antifederalist No. 81 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 3)
Antifederalist No. 82 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 4)
Antifederalist No. 83 THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY AND THE ISSUE OF TRIAL BY JURY
Antifederalist No. 84 ON THE LACK OF A BILL OF RIGHTS
Antifederalist No. 85 CONCLUDING REMARKS: EVILS UNDER CONFEDERATION EXAGGERATED; CONSTITUTION MUST BE DRASTICALLY REVISED BEFORE ADOPTION

And yet the Federalists also had a devious agenda.

Truth Warrior
05-30-2008, 12:47 PM
You seem offended when it was I who said that the American system isn't complex. It isn't complex as a political science because it doesn't attempt to manipulate people about with the corrupt power of tyranny as does Marxism; rather, it is simple because it establishes people with concrete truths as "being" citizens. These self evident and inalienable truths are concrete because they are not based on a political science but were established by the science of natural law.
If you don't like discussing Plato, then quit pretending that the American system of government was created by Barbarians using pagan principles.

A) You can't offend me without my permission.

B) You don't have my permission.

C) Yes it does manipulate just like the Marxists, it's called propaganda.

D) The Constitution centralized national government just like the European Barbarians do and did. Hell, Hamilton was a monarchist and mercantilist. Not to mention a "central banker" in the Bank of England, Rothschild mold.:rolleyes:

E) Natural Law is WHERE EXACTLY, IN THE CONSTITUTION?

F) Our species is "stuck in barbarism", largely because of it's barbaric and often savage world "institutions", most usually statist governments.

G) No pretense is necessary, they were and are.

H) How many of the issues raised by the Anti-Feds in the 1780's, are still burning issues to this very day?

I) The prescience of the Anti-Feds is stunning in it's accuracy, in hindsight.

J) Research and homework time, for you! :D

Truth Warrior
05-30-2008, 12:50 PM
And yet the Federalists also had a devious agenda.
Yep, tyranny and leviathan, just like the European Barbarians. Here we are! "We the People".

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-30-2008, 01:14 PM
A) You can't offend me without my permission.

B) You don't have my permission.

C) Yes it does manipulate just like the Marxists, it's called propaganda.

D) The Constitution centralized national government just like the European Barbarians do and did. Hell, Hamilton was a monarchist and mercantilist. Not to mention a "central banker" in the Bank of England, Rothschild mold.:rolleyes:

E) Natural Law is WHERE EXACTLY, IN THE CONSTITUTION?

F) Our species is "stuck in barbarism", largely because of it's barbaric and often savage world "institutions", most usually statist governments.

G) No pretense is necessary, they were and are.

H) How many of the issues raised by the Anti-Feds in the 1780's, are still burning issues to this very day?

I) The prescience of the Anti-Feds is stunning in it's accuracy, in hindsight.

J) Research and homework time, for you! :D

Look. I'm not a novice lawyer nor do I desire to be an expert one. As a legitimized citizen of the United States there are certain truths that I am expert in because my founding fathers established them beyond even the ideal as concrete, self evident laws of nature even to the degree that they are inalienably written as natural rights onto the conscience of my soul. So, America doesn't have a government based on a complex political science but one based on a simple truth established by the science of natural laws.
THIS IS THE INCREDIBLE ACHIEVEMENT OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS!

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-30-2008, 01:32 PM
Yep, tyranny and leviathan, just like the European Barbarians. Here we are! "We the People".

If you don't put forth a greater effort, then I'm going to have to make your argument for you.

Truth Warrior
05-30-2008, 01:41 PM
Look. I'm not a novice lawyer nor do I desire to be an expert one. As a legitimized citizen of the United States there are certain truths that I am expert in because my founding fathers established them beyond even the ideal as concrete, self evident laws of nature even to the degree that they are inalienably written as natural rights onto the conscience of my soul. So, America doesn't have a government based on a complex political science but one based on a simple truth established by the science of natural laws.
THIS IS THE INCREDIBLE ACHIEVEMENT OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS!
Nor am I and nor do I.

What about the other founding fathers, namely Jefferson, others AND the Anti-Feds? Not your's?

Your self evident natural laws ARE pure Jefferson in the D of I only, and NOT present in the Constitution.

Yeah, it WAS the American Revolution. The Federalists, WITH their Constitution coup, sold it out.

Truth Warrior
05-30-2008, 01:58 PM
If you don't put forth a greater effort, then I'm going to have to make your argument for you.Isn't that my FIRST warning?

A one sentence reply to a one sentence post. Where is the problem?

Oh, please do, and be my guest. This should be really fun. :D

Are you offering to serve as my interpreter to the less literate RPF masses, AGAIN? :rolleyes:

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-30-2008, 05:06 PM
Nor am I and nor do I.

What about the other founding fathers, namely Jefferson, others AND the Anti-Feds? Not your's?

Your self evident natural laws ARE pure Jefferson in the D of I only, and NOT present in the Constitution.

Yeah, it WAS the American Revolution. The Federalist's, WITH their Constitution coup, sold it out.

Reading this post was like roping a rabbit while riding a kangaroo -- Uncle Emanuel Watkins.

Truth Warrior
05-30-2008, 05:08 PM
Reading this post was like roping a rabbit while riding a kangaroo -- Uncle Emanuel Watkins.

ALL four double-spaced lines? :rolleyes: Horrors! :eek:

Imagine now, how I deal with your "typical" posts. :D

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-30-2008, 05:17 PM
Isn't that my FIRST warning?

A one sentence reply to a one sentence post. Where is the problem?

Oh, please do, and be my guest. This should be really fun. :D

Are you offering to serve as my interpreter to the less literate RPF masses, AGAIN? :rolleyes:

The only argument you can make is an epistemological one. Any other argument is going to fall short.

Truth Warrior
05-30-2008, 05:24 PM
The only argument you can make is an epistemological one. Any other argument is going to fall short.
Sounds like false bravado and mere wishful thinking to me. Well as long as your mind is already made up concerning the absolute short fall of any other argument.

Try this one on for size.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.php

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-30-2008, 08:11 PM
Sounds like false bravado and mere wishful thinking to me. Well as long as your mind is already made up concerning the absolute short fall of any other argument.

Try this one on for size.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.php

"Law of nature" or "Natural Law" as it is referred to here falls short of what its definition reduces to in science. When Sir Isaac Newton established his laws of nature such as "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" the possibility was never considered by him that it might exist as a theoretical conclusion. Such conclusions were not made with the thought that they would ever be challenged by opposing theories. In fact, the only opposing natural laws happened as a result of the competing sciences in other nations like France or Germany.

When Sir Isaac Newton established that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction," he did so believing that such a natural law had existed in the past forever as it would exist in the future likewise. So, we aren't just talking about an ideal here.

The fact that the world's greatest government is founded on truths established by the science of natural law is a paradox.

Acala
05-30-2008, 09:05 PM
Truth Warrior, you have missed the point.

You must shoot the arrow straight up in order for it to come down and dislodge the apple from the tree so it lands on the dinner table where master and servant are both seated contemplating the civil purpose while being served by a kangaroo.

NOW do you get it? :D

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-30-2008, 09:17 PM
Truth Warrior, you have missed the point.

You must shoot the arrow straight up in order for it to come down and dislodge the apple from the tree so it lands on the dinner table where master and servant are both seated contemplating the civil purpose while being served by a kangaroo.

NOW do you get it? :D

I was actually following the analogy until you got to the kangaroo part. Try harder. For now here is a silver star for your forehead. Keep up the good work!

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-30-2008, 11:08 PM
Violence is never a means to knowledge. As Isabel Paterson, explained in her book, The God of the Machine, "No edict of law can impart to an individual a faculty denied him by nature. A government order cannot mend a broken leg, but it can command the mutilation of a sound body. It cannot bestow intelligence, but it can forbid the use of intelligence." Or, as Baldy Harper used to put it, "You cannot shoot a truth!" The advocate of any form of invasive violence is in a logically precarious situation. Coercion does not convince, nor is it any kind of argument. William Godwin pointed out that force "is contrary to the nature of the intellect, which cannot but be improved by conviction and persuasion," and "if he who employs coercion against me could mold me to his purposes by argument, no doubt, he would.. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because he is weak." Violence contains none of the energies that enhance a civilized human society. At best, it is only capable of expanding the material existence of a few individuals, while narrowing the opportunities of most others.

Problems that I have with the above argument:

1) This viewpoint fails to divide the history of government into the primitive caste systems of old and the modern "positive" systems of new.

2) This viewpoint seems foreign in its use of a political science that manipulates people while the American political science establishes people based on self evident and inalienable truths.

3) This viewpoint naively seperates intelligence from that of violence when it is well known that a large part of government is involved with the violence of organized crime.

4) The concept of truth referred to here falls well short of the self evident and inalienable truths established by our founding fathers.

5) This viewpoint seems foreign because it does not acknowlege that the American system didn't just grant liberty to the slaves which the rest of the modern world did but it also bound the master.

Okay. Here is my viewpoint as I have been enlightened to see it as an American citizen sitting at the national dinner table. In our arrogance, we have our concepts of civilization all backwards. We always think "law" first and then "order" when our desire to develop a positive government order eventually took precedence over the secondary functions of laws. This new "positive" order gave rise to the concepts of the state and the ownership of property because it became necessary to protect the newer modern civilization from that of the old primitive disorders.

In other words, while tyrannies of masters once established boundaries by treaty to protect themselves from other tyrannies of masters -- in order to establish peaceful systems of "disorder" -- a new concept of statehood developed where it became necessary to establish boundaries to protect the established orderly civilization from a system which was considered to be more primitive and disorderly.

Cracks began to appear in the primitive systems of disorder as the Greek Socrates demonstrated how a slave boy (depicted in Plato's dialogue entitled Meno) could learn to improve his happiness if a midwife philosopher (teacher) such as himself was willing to serve him.

Modern governments today ideally establish an order of happiness primarily (that is the concept of positive government) while the obeying of the necessary evil of laws becomes secondary.

So, we first govern at the table by quenching our thirst for happiness before we take care of the secondary responsibility of eating.

Truth Warrior
05-31-2008, 05:08 AM
"Law of nature" or "Natural Law" as it is referred to here falls short of what its definition reduces to in science. When Sir Isaac Newton established his laws of nature such as "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" the possibility was never considered by him that it might exist as a theoretical conclusion. Such conclusions were not made with the thought that they would ever be challenged by opposing theories. In fact, the only opposing natural laws happened as a result of the competing sciences in other nations like France or Germany.

When Sir Isaac Newton established that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction," he did so believing that such a natural law had existed in the past forever as it would exist in the future likewise. So, we aren't just talking about an ideal here.

The fact that the world's greatest government is founded on truths established by the science of natural law is a paradox.
The fact that the "world's greatest government" is still just another boring, evil, worthless piece of shit human "institution" ( tool ), just like all of the other ones throughout human history, is NO paradox. The Romans thought that they were pretty "hot shit" too. :p

You can't polish a turd. And even if you could, you still only just end up with a shiny turd.

You're playing comparative advantage, in barbarism. Merely polishing the brass, and rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, will neither help nor work.

I'm playing good vs. evil, in the REAL "civilization".

"Institutionalized" force, coercion and violence ( probable ultimate extinction CAUSE, at our own species' hands ) VS Freedom, Peace and Prosperity ( survival, [ just and only maybe?] ) You choose.

Up your game and your sights, from barbarism and savagery.

Move up from the "little leagues", to the Majors, if you think that you're ready. :)

"Those that do not learn from history, are condemned to repeat it."

Choose the "red pill"! :)

Truth Warrior
05-31-2008, 05:11 AM
Truth Warrior, you have missed the point.

You must shoot the arrow straight up in order for it to come down and dislodge the apple from the tree so it lands on the dinner table where master and servant are both seated contemplating the civil purpose while being served by a kangaroo.

NOW do you get it? :D

I transcend the point. :)

NOW do you get it? :D

;)

Truth Warrior
05-31-2008, 05:17 AM
Problems that I have with the above argument:

1) This viewpoint fails to divide the history of government into the primitive caste systems of old and the modern "positive" systems of new.

2) This viewpoint seems foreign in its use of a political science that manipulates people while the American political science establishes people based on self evident and inalienable truths.

3) This viewpoint naively seperates intelligence from that of violence when it is well known that a large part of government is involved with the violence of organized crime.

4) The concept of truth referred to here falls well short of the self evident and inalienable truths established by our founding fathers.

5) This viewpoint seems foreign because it does not acknowlege that the American system didn't just grant liberty to the slaves which the rest of the modern world did but it also bound the master.

Okay. Here is my viewpoint as I have been enlightened to see it as an American citizen sitting at the national dinner table. In our arrogance, we have our concepts of civilization all backwards. We always think "law" first and then "order" when our desire to develop a positive government order eventually took precedence over the secondary functions of laws. This new "positive" order gave rise to the concepts of the state and the ownership of property because it became necessary to protect the newer modern civilization from that of the old primitive disorders.

In other words, while tyrannies of masters once established boundaries by treaty to protect themselves from other tyrannies of masters -- in order to establish peaceful systems of "disorder" -- a new concept of statehood developed where it became necessary to establish boundaries to protect the established orderly civilization from a system which was considered to be more primitive and disorderly.

Cracks began to appear in the primitive systems of disorder as the Greek Socrates demonstrated how a slave boy (depicted in Plato's dialogue entitled Meno) could learn to improve his happiness if a midwife philosopher (teacher) such as himself was willing to serve him.

Modern governments today ideally establish an order of happiness primarily (that is the concept of positive government) while the obeying of the necessary evil of laws becomes secondary.

So, we first govern at the table by quenching our thirst for happiness before we take care of the secondary responsibility of eating.

You're still just playing checkers, while I'm still just playing chess. :)

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-31-2008, 09:49 AM
You're still just playing checkers, while I'm still just playing chess. :)

I appreciate that you love yourself when you play the game of chess. I believe that children are our future and yes that future includes playing games. So, teach them well how to play and let them lead the way. Show them all the moves they possess inside. Give them a sense of pride to make it easier to open. Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to play with ourselves. But then we looked up to Bobby Fisher who was our chess hero because he was brilliant in how he moved his rooks. People need a chess model after all to look up to.

Because the greatest love of all is developing your pieces. I found the greatest love of all inside of me was moving my queen first. So, I learned to never move her piece first but to hold my peace. The greatest love is won up the middle. And that greatest love of all is easy to achieve when you develop your pieces responsibly. Though learning to love the end game is the greatest love of all.

And remember that in real life it is like a game of chess. Giving her flowers is your greatest opening move. Shutting your mouth to let her ramble on endlessly in the midgame. Get her drunk in the end game while making sure you wear a condom.

Because the greatest love of all happens when you don't have children.

Truth Warrior
05-31-2008, 10:19 AM
I appreciate that you love yourself when you play the game of chess. I believe that children are our future and yes that future includes playing games. So, teach them well how to play and let them lead the way. Show them all the moves they possess inside. Give them a sense of pride to make it easier to open. Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to play with ourselves. But then we looked up to Bobby Fisher who was our chess hero because he was brilliant in how he moved his rooks. People need a chess model after all to look up to.

Because the greatest love of all is developing your pieces. I found the greatest love of all inside of me was moving my queen first. So, I learned to never move her piece first but to hold my peace. The greatest love is won up the middle. And that greatest love of all is easy to achieve when you develop your pieces responsibly. Though learning to love the end game is the greatest love of all.

And remember that in real life it is like a game of chess. Giving her flowers is your greatest opening move. Shutting your mouth to let her ramble on endlessly in the midgame. Get her drunk in the end game while making sure you wear a condom.

Because the greatest love of all happens when you don't have children.
I have three ( now grownup, adult ) children, and a grandchild?

How about you? :rolleyes:

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-31-2008, 10:46 AM
I have three ( now grownup, adult ) children, and a grandchild?

How about you? :rolleyes:

I have 2 teenage sons. No grandchildren.

Truth Warrior
05-31-2008, 11:12 AM
I have 2 teenage sons. No grandchildren.
Thanks! :)

BTW, are you conceding on thread page #10, my two final posts? :D

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-31-2008, 02:26 PM
Thanks! :)

BTW, are you conceding on my thread page #10, two final posts? :D

Conceding? I am not a law maker or a lawyer which means that I am a lunatic when bickering about political issues and a client when discussing legal precedents. I rule as a citizen only when I sit at the national dinner table.

Truth Warrior
05-31-2008, 03:03 PM
Conceding? I am not a law maker or a lawyer which means that I am a lunatic when bickering about political issues and a client when discussing legal precedents. I rule as a citizen only when I sit at the national dinner table.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

Truth Warrior
05-31-2008, 03:24 PM
Problems that I have with the above argument:

1) This viewpoint fails to divide the history of government into the primitive caste systems of old and the modern "positive" systems of new.

2) This viewpoint seems foreign in its use of a political science that manipulates people while the American political science establishes people based on self evident and inalienable truths.

3) This viewpoint naively seperates intelligence from that of violence when it is well known that a large part of government is involved with the violence of organized crime.

4) The concept of truth referred to here falls well short of the self evident and inalienable truths established by our founding fathers.

5) This viewpoint seems foreign because it does not acknowlege that the American system didn't just grant liberty to the slaves which the rest of the modern world did but it also bound the master.

Okay. Here is my viewpoint as I have been enlightened to see it as an American citizen sitting at the national dinner table. In our arrogance, we have our concepts of civilization all backwards. We always think "law" first and then "order" when our desire to develop a positive government order eventually took precedence over the secondary functions of laws. This new "positive" order gave rise to the concepts of the state and the ownership of property because it became necessary to protect the newer modern civilization from that of the old primitive disorders.

In other words, while tyrannies of masters once established boundaries by treaty to protect themselves from other tyrannies of masters -- in order to establish peaceful systems of "disorder" -- a new concept of statehood developed where it became necessary to establish boundaries to protect the established orderly civilization from a system which was considered to be more primitive and disorderly.

Cracks began to appear in the primitive systems of disorder as the Greek Socrates demonstrated how a slave boy (depicted in Plato's dialogue entitled Meno) could learn to improve his happiness if a midwife philosopher (teacher) such as himself was willing to serve him.

Modern governments today ideally establish an order of happiness primarily (that is the concept of positive government) while the obeying of the necessary evil of laws becomes secondary.

So, we first govern at the table by quenching our thirst for happiness before we take care of the secondary responsibility of eating.

Problems that I have with the above argument:
1) This viewpoint fails to divide the history of government into the primitive caste systems of old and the modern "positive" systems of new.

Parsing crap merely yields parsed crap.

2) This viewpoint seems foreign in its use of a political science that manipulates people while the American political science establishes people based on self evident and inalienable truths.

The American people, by and large, are both ignorant and apathetic, by design, and/or by choice. The tyrants count on this FACT and even expect it and profit from it.

3) This viewpoint naively seperates intelligence from that of violence when it is well known that a large part of government is involved with the violence of organized crime.

The government just hates the competition, and claims a MONOPOLY of violence. Why is there ANY violent organized crime left, after all of these years?

How much constitutes, "a large part of government"?

The sign on Ron Paul's D.C. office desk reads, "DON'T STEAL! The government hates the competition." :D

4) The concept of truth referred to here falls well short of the self evident and inalienable truths established by our founding fathers.

What FOUNDING FATHER (singular)? Establish??? Or was it merely a reality acknowledgment?

5) This viewpoint seems foreign because it does not acknowlege that the American system didn't just grant liberty to the slaves which the rest of the modern world did but it also bound the master.

The Brits abolished slavery ( peacefully, BTW ), long before the USA government did.

Okay. Here is my viewpoint as I have been enlightened to see it as an American citizen sitting at the national dinner table. In our arrogance, we have our concepts of civilization all backwards. We always think "law" first and then "order" when our desire to develop a positive government order eventually took precedence over the secondary functions of laws. This new "positive" order gave rise to the concepts of the state and the ownership of property because it became necessary to protect the newer modern civilization from that of the old primitive disorders.

The PEOPLE were NEVER even "invited" to the "national dinner table". The dinner was "cooked" in "secret" cabal coup proceedings, ( unauthorized AND illegal, BTW ). The entire affair was strictly "by invitation only". Non-Federalists need not inquire nor apply.

( You really do need some new material, metaphors and analogies. These are really getting old, very tiresome and are wearing very thin. )

In other words, while tyrannies of masters once established boundaries by treaty to protect themselves from other tyrannies of masters -- in order to establish peaceful systems of "disorder" -- a new concept of statehood developed where it became necessary to establish boundaries to protect the established orderly civilization from a system which was considered to be more primitive and disorderly.

Governments create, foster and nurture CHAOS and then respond with TYRANNY and merely call it ORDER.

Cracks began to appear in the primitive systems of disorder as the Greek Socrates demonstrated how a slave boy (depicted in Plato's dialogue entitled Meno) could learn to improve his happiness if a midwife philosopher (teacher) such as himself was willing to serve him.

And remember what the "STATE" did to Socrates.

Modern governments today ideally establish an order of happiness primarily (that is the concept of positive government) while the obeying of the necessary evil of laws becomes secondary.

Were you "schooled" in the "government" schools?

Government is a failed concept. How many chances to succeed should failed concepts be given. 6,000 years on the road to nowhere, seems like way more than enough chances, to me.

So, we first govern at the table by quenching our thirst for happiness before we take care of the secondary responsibility of eating.

Meekly tolerated by ALL "happy" slaves always and everywhere. Better a "conscious" slave than a happy one.


"Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." -- Thomas Jefferson

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-31-2008, 03:29 PM
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

Tyranny happens when the king isn't ruling at the table so that no untouchable thirsts. When responsibility at the table takes precedent to the point that we are made to eat without any concern for whether our dry mouths thirst, it is time to divorce the king as a tyrant.

Truth Warrior
05-31-2008, 03:39 PM
Tyranny happens when the king isn't ruling at the table so that no untouchable thirsts. When responsibility at the table takes precedent to the point that we are made to eat without any concern for whether our dry mouths thirst, it is time to divorce the king as a tyrant.

"History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is." -- Thomas Jefferson

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-31-2008, 04:43 PM
"History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is." -- Thomas Jefferson

Wrong! -- Uncle Emanuel Watkins.

Truth Warrior
05-31-2008, 06:00 PM
Wrong! -- Uncle Emanuel Watkins.
:rolleyes:

TJ's entitled to his opinion, isn't he? An opinion which I also share and confirm, through my long study and understanding of history, BTW.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." -- Thomas Jefferson

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-31-2008, 10:37 PM
:rolleyes:

TJ's entitled to his opinion, isn't he? An opinion which I also share and confirm, through my long study and understanding of history, BTW.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." -- Thomas Jefferson

We learned the concept of positive government from the Greek fathers long after mankind had fallen during the dark ages.

The idea for our present positive government originated during the Zenith of Greek civilization before it transcended through the Hellenistic age of Sketicism, Stoicism, Cynicism, Epicureanism, Hedonism, Hellenistic Judaism, Sophism and Neoplatonism.

The Hellenistic age then transcended even further into the age of faith in Western Europe. As a result, most of what was known by Plato and all that was known by Aristotle -- he fell out of favor with the Greeks after all -- was lost for at least 1600 years. Even after the philsophies of Aristotle and Plato were later introduced into Western Europe, it was still necessary to build advanced Universities to unravel their mysteries.

The concept of positive government wasn't really established until the 18th century until Jean Rousseau who with no formal education schooled himself in the knowlege of ancient Greek philosophy.

So, we learned from the past the concept of positive government.

Truth Warrior
06-01-2008, 03:58 AM
We learned the concept of positive government from the Zenith fathers long after mankind had fallen during a dark ages.

The idea for our present positive government originated during the Greek zenith before its civilization transcended through Hellenistic age of the Sketicism, Stoicism, Cynicism, Epicureanism, Hedonism, Hellenistic Judaism, Sophism and Neoplatonism.

The Hellenistic age transcended even further into the age of faith in Western Europe. As a result, most of what was known by Plato and all that was known by Aristotle was lost for at least 1600 years. Even after the philsophies of Aristotle and Plato were introduced into Western Europe, it was still necessary to build advanced Universities to unravel their mysteries.

The concept of positive government wasn't really acheived until Jean Rousseau who had no formal education schooled himself in the knowlege of ancient Greek philosophy.

So, we learned from the past the concept of positive government.

It's Greek to me! :D

Shame that they didn't choose to "positively" consign the whole tyranny/barbarism/savagery "concepts", to the ash heap of history also. I guess that some folks still find the "positive" government force, coercion and violence just too tempting, useful and valuable as tools, in kind of a "positive pragmatic barbaric concept" sort of way. Or maybe they just didn't receive the memo. :rolleyes:

So since Rousseau ( European Barbarian AND French [ Freemason ]:p ) everything has been just "peachy", right? :rolleyes: Is that what you're saying?

BTW, "concepts" are just about a penny per ton. How many would you like?

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." -- Thomas Jefferson

CHECK! :D Your move.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-01-2008, 08:11 AM
It's Greek to me! :D

Shame that they didn't choose to "positively" consign the whole tyranny/barbarism/savagery "concepts", to the ash heap of history also. I guess that some folks still find the "positive" government force, coercion and violence just too tempting, useful and valuable as tools, in kind of a "positive pragmatic concept" sort of way. Or maybe they just didn't receive the memo. :rolleyes:

So since Rousseau ( European Barbarian AND French [ Freemason ]:p ) everything has been just "peachy", right? :rolleyes: Is that what you're saying?

BTW, "concepts" are just about a penny per ton. How many would you like?

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." -- Thomas Jefferson

CHECK! :D Your move.

Before African Americans were brought to the United States to live in servitude, they lived quite peacefully in Africa with master Africans ruling over them. These primitive caste systems were the common choice of government all over the world. In these dynasties the typical function of government was to use elite teachers to train the prince to take his rightful place on the throne of his father. The inferior, poor children in contrast were never "corrupted" with teachings because their minds were considered to be beyond redemption to be enslaved perpetually to poverty.

Where these primitive caste systems were first challenged was in Plato's dialogue entitled "Meno." Socrates demonstrated clearly that a slave boy could improve his mind when a midwife-philosopher such as himself was willing to serve him.

The Greek concept of the "good life" was an idea of positive government which dispensed a degree of happiness to the ruled people, not just the perpetual poverty of the primitive caste systems.

freelance
06-01-2008, 08:23 AM
I can't believe that I read this whole thread. I really must get a life!

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-01-2008, 09:04 AM
I can't believe that I read this whole thread. I really must get a life!

If you don't desire to sit at the national dinner table, then leave. Bye.

Ozwest
06-01-2008, 09:30 AM
Was that a irr-ational dinner table?

Uncle Emanuel,

You certainly pick and choose your history lessons.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-01-2008, 10:05 AM
[/QUOTE]Parsing crap merely yields parsed crap.

As I tell my sons often, I'm not here to teach you but to assist the teacher by playing the part of an ideal student. I am now in the process of demonstrating to them how the U.S. government was formed with 2 formal documents. A divorce decree -- the Declaration of Independence -- and a marriage decree -- the U.S. Constitution.

[/QUOTE]The American people, by and large, are both ignorant and apathetic, by design, and/or by choice. The tyrants count on this FACT and even expect it and profit from it.[/QUOTE]

Never blame the people.

[/QUOTE]The government just hates the competition, and claims a MONOPOLY of violence. Why is there ANY violent organized crime left, after all of these years? [/QUOTE]

When you blame a government of the people, you blame the people.

[/QUOTE]How much constitutes, "a large part of government"? [/QUOTE]

The government would like to seperate itself from the criminals who they caste into their prisons and yet the government knowingly castes us into prisons to be abused in the anus. So, the government is both that part which does not abuse us in the anus and that part which does.

[/QUOTE]The sign on Ron Paul's D.C. office desk reads, "DON'T STEAL! The government hates the competition." :D[/QUOTE]

While Dr. Ron Paul seems willing to accept that the slaves should be freed, he doesn't seem to have enough vision to see that the master needs to be bound. If he king can spend unlimited amounts to seperate himself from the dinner table, the people can't be limited in the amount they can spend to bound him to the dinner table.
Look, I don't need a bayonet shoved into my belly and twisted around to accept the notion that the U.S. government has a social agenda. Some hateful people out there will just have to suffer this fate because one can't defeat the self evident and inalienable truths. Sorry.

[/QUOTE]What FOUNDING FATHER (singular)? Establish??? Or was it merely a reality acknowledgment?[/QUOTE]

Socrates. Socrates died to establish his ideas rather than continue living on in a primitive caste system.

[/QUOTE]The Brits abolished slavery ( peacefully, BTW ), long before the USA government did.[/QUOTE]

Listen here you ungrateful, unAmerican, God Damned son of a bitch. Move your antagonistic ass back to Britain then. Or who are you exactly? Canadian? It didn't do a damned thing to free the slaves in Britain. The Queen is still eating at her dinner table while she occasionally feints because the help failed to pick up a crumb off the carpet.
America didn't just free her slaves but she freed them to come and eat at the same dinner table as the master class. That is the American ideal. This nation has a clear history of binding her master class.
Indeed, African Americans just love to complain about how they were treated like wart hogs after their transportions to the nation of freedom while they fail to complain about how they were treated in Africa like butt hairs on the wart hog prior to that.
We aren't here to be freed as slaves; rather, we are here to be freed to come to the same dinner table that the master has been bound to remain. Let's get real here. We shouldn't attempt to achieve equality as a classless society when a much better lifestyle can be obtained by sitting as a classful one. A classful society is a national dinner table devoid of tyranny. If this notion makes your belly bitter, blame your founding fathers.

[/QUOTE]The PEOPLE were NEVER even "invited" to the "national dinner table". The dinner was "cooked" in "secret" cabal coup proceedings, ( unauthorized AND illegal, BTW ). The entire affair was strictly "by invitation only". Non-Federalists need not inquire nor apply.[/QUOTE]

Yes. The notions were cooked 2500 years ago. Socrates is the father of western civilization. Our founding fathers just carried the baton to the conclusion of self evident, inalienable truths.

[/QUOTE]( You really do need some new material, metaphors and analogies. These are really getting old, very tiresome and are wearing very thin. )[/QUOTE]

You are lost in the political issues of law makers and the legal precedents of lawyers. I'm just a citizen.

[/QUOTE]Governments create, foster and nurture CHAOS and then respond with TYRANNY and merely call it ORDER.[/QUOTE]

Law and disorder is chaos. A positive order with the necessary evil of law is civilization.

[/QUOTE]And remember what the "STATE" did to Socrates.[/QUOTE]

The State did nothing to Socrates because he had a choice. He could have chosen exile but instead preserved his ideals by choosing not to live any longer in a primitive caste society.

[/QUOTE]Were you "schooled" in the "government" schools? [/QUOTE]

I just don't understand this question.

[/QUOTE]Government is a failed concept. How many chances to succeed should failed concepts be given. 6,000 years on the road to nowhere, seems like way more than enough chances, to me.[/QUOTE]

You are both ignorant and wrong. Geeze. Look. If you read books you need to quit. Are you even careful when you read? Do you look for poison? Are you aware that your attitude is like stickers in the grass? You just serve to stumble and discourage for cripes sake. Is this virtuous to you?

[/QUOTE]Meekly tolerated by ALL "happy" slaves always and everywhere. Better a "conscious" slave than a happy one.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Let us divide the table into racial bickering. Now you've really done it. No! Go to hell. It is master and slave sitting at the same dinner table. If you don't have the intelligence to perceive the agenda behind the tactic, then perhaps you shouldn't be in the business of caring for people.

[/QUOTE]"Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." -- Thomas Jefferson [/QUOTE]

James Madison was greater than Thomas Jefferson -- Uncle Emanuel Watkins.

Ozwest
06-01-2008, 10:13 AM
Welcome to the world-wide community Uncle Emanuel...

Travel much?

Ozwest
06-01-2008, 10:28 AM
I wonder if Socrates would have been un- American Uncle Emanuel?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-01-2008, 11:18 AM
Was that a irr-ational dinner table?

Uncle Emanuel,

You certainly pick and choose your history lessons.

Sorry, Ozwest. You have already chosen a lessor girlfriend (Australia). I've done that before. After losing the better girlfriend (This would represent the United States), I demanded that my new girlfriend act better. She just needed to in order to soften the humility I was suffering. So, I reasoned with her as to why she needed to act better and prettier herself up better while pointing out all the negative aspects about my old girlfriend.

Eventually my new girlfriend made the ultimate insult by accusing me of loving my prior girlfriend.

I don't know. Just how does one go about explaining the greatest government in the world to a foreigner? Certainly because you are a foreigner you will be prejudiced.

Let me start by arguing that the Declaration of Independence establishes a boundary between England and the United States. Frankly speaking, the system of government in England -- a power of tyranny -- was declared inferior to the self evident truths established in the United States -- a power inalienably written on the souls of the people.

When the king sat at the same dinner table with us we were happy with him. When he demonstrated that he wasn't sitting with us at the same table as a king but sitting at a different table as a tyrant -- by behaving more like a naughty prince -- then we divorced his authority. But they did not divorce his God given authority outright but with a greater authority and power expressed as self evident and inalienable truths. This is clearly demonstrated in the Declaration of Independence.

Our founding fathers were being concerned as Christians when writing the Declaration of Independence because they understood that the book of Romans had established the king as "ordained" with God's authority on earth. The Divorce decree replaces the authority of the king with a natural law. This natural law existed in an *immortal fashion, as laws of nature do, so that it superceded the authority of the king. These self evident and inalienable truths empowered our founding fathers to divorce the tyrant and his tyranny so that they could set up a new nation (the United States) with a new king (president).

*When Sir Isaac Newton discovered that "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" he wrote it down as a self evident natural law because it existed prior to his birth forever as it would exist after his death forever. Although Einstein introduced later a more "relative" theory to challenge Newton's "universal" natural law, the practical aspect of the law itself remains unchallenged even today in its usefulness.

Ozwest
06-01-2008, 11:22 AM
Sorry, Ozwest. You have already chosen a lessor girlfriend (Australia). I've done that before. After losing the better girlfriend (This would represent the United States), I demanded that my new girlfriend act better. She just needed to in order to soften the humility I was suffering. So, I reasoned with her as to why she needed to act better and prettier herself up better while pointing out all the negative aspects about my old girlfriend.

Eventually my new girlfriend made the ultimate insult by accusing me of loving my prior girlfriend.

I don't know. Just how does one go about explaining the greatest government in the world to a foreigner? Certainly because you are a foreigner you will be prejudiced.

Let me start by arguing that the Declaration of Independence establishes a boundary between England and the United States. Frankly speaking, the system of government in England -- a power of tyranny -- was declared inferior to the self evident truths established in the United States -- a power inalienably written on the souls of the people.

When the king sat at the same dinner table with us we were happy with him. When he demonstrated that he wasn't sitting with us at the same table as a king but sitting at a different table as a tyrant -- by behaving more like a naughty prince -- then we divorced his authority. But they did not divorce his God given authority outright but with a greater authority and power expressed as self evident and inalienable truths. This is clearly demonstrated in the Declaration of Independence.

Our founding fathers were being concerned as Christians when writing the Declaration of Independence because they understood that the book of Romans had established the king as "ordained" with God's authority on earth. The Divorce decree replaces the authority of the king with a natural law. This natural law existed in an *immortal fashion, as laws of nature do, so that it superceded the authority of the king. These self evident and inalienable truths empowered our founding fathers to divorce the tyrant and his tyranny so that they could set up a new nation (the United States) with a new king (president).

*When Sir Isaac Newton discovered that "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" he wrote it down as a self evident natural law because it existed prior to his birth forever as it would exist after his death forever. Although Einstein introduced later a more "relative" theory to challenge Newton's "universal" natural law, the practical aspect of the law itself remains unchallenged even today in its usefulness.

Dribble.. Dribble... Dribble...

I repeat.

Have you left your borders?

It's a big world out there.

Ozwest
06-01-2008, 11:37 AM
Of course Uncle Emanuel, you would invade others, to spread the good news.

Fascist.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-01-2008, 12:05 PM
I wonder if Socrates would have been un- American Uncle Emanuel?

Socrates understood that the mind of a poor slave boy could learn. This in itself was extraordinary. But then he also considered that the slave boy would need a serving elite to teach him. This was even more extraordinary. So, Socrates portrayed the slave boy to be like a fallen god with a soul that once knew everything prior to birth before losing it during the trauma of conception. Even more extraordinary. This is why Socrates proclaimed himself a serving midwife philosopher to the poor to help the poor slave boy "recollect" what his soul had already known prior to birth. This is beyond extraordinary.

What is even more extraordinary is that his student Plato was even more extraordinary. He had to be in order to fully capture the dark but brilliant ponderings of Socrates to the extent that he could express them in the light so clearly that students can still read about him even today some 2400 years later.

Ozwest
06-01-2008, 12:11 PM
Socrates understood that the mind of a poor slave boy could learn. This in itself was extraordinary. But then he also considered that the slave boy would need a serving elite to teach him. This was even more extraordinary. So, Socrates portrayed the slave boy to be like a fallen god with a soul that once knew everything prior to birth before losing it during the trauma of conception. Even more extraordinary. This is why Socrates proclaimed himself a serving midwife philosopher to the poor to help the poor slave boy "recollect" what his soul had already known prior to birth. This is beyond extraordinary.

What is even more extraordinary is that his student Plato was even more extraordinary. He had to be in order to fully capture the dark but brilliant ponderings of Socrates to the extent that he could express them in the light so clearly that students can still read about him even today some 2400 years later.

You are a font...

A font of psychobabblle.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-01-2008, 12:38 PM
Of course Uncle Emanuel, you would invade others, to spread the good news.

Fascist.

President George Bush Sr. spreads a weird from of Greek Democracy which the majority of the people in the United States do not support.
Our founding fathers realized that the quest towards Utopia is better than acheiving one. So, our nation has American movements which reestablish our constitutional government as it has its periods where it erodes to tyranny. This is the best we can hope for.
The nation of China, in comparison, is a Utopia today because of communism. Literally every Chinese sits classless at the Chinese dinner table with no master and slave class. We know this is true because the ruling master class wears peasant garments. So, legally speaking, there is no reason to bind the master class in China.
Because we don't try to sit classless together at the same dinner table in the United States but classfully together with a master class bound to remain at the same table as a slave class is freed to come, our nation has lots of problems.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-01-2008, 12:43 PM
You are a font...

A font of psychobabblle.

Well, it is always better to criticize than to have to learn to appreciate.

Ozwest
06-01-2008, 12:43 PM
Uncle Emanuel,

Have a Holiday.

Go sit on a beach in Jamaica... And scratch your balls.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-01-2008, 12:47 PM
Dribble.. Dribble... Dribble...

I repeat.

Have you left your borders?

It's a big world out there.

Don't tell me what you know, tell me where you have been. ~ Muhammed.

Do the self evident and inalienable truths serve as the American formal-culture?

Ozwest
06-01-2008, 12:49 PM
Don't tell me what you know, tell me where you have been. ~ Muhammed.

Do the self evident and inalienable truths serve as the American formal-culture?

I've been in your town.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-01-2008, 01:13 PM
You are a font...

A font of psychobabblle.

The cognizant sciences did not exist during the time of the Greek or the American founding fathers.

Ozwest
06-01-2008, 01:30 PM
The cognizant sciences did not exist during the time of the Greek or the American founding fathers.

Cognizant. Does that mean you have a knowledge of something?

It's all Greek to me.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-01-2008, 03:14 PM
Cognizant. Does that mean you have a knowledge of something?

It's all Greek to me.

This means none of our founding fathers were psychologically insane or socially abnormal because none of the cognizant fields of "science" had yet to be developed. I guess the worst they could have been classified was possessed by demons or witchcraft.

Ozwest
06-01-2008, 03:20 PM
This means none of our founding fathers were psychologically insane or socially abnormal because none of the cognizant fields of "science" had yet to be developed. I guess the worst they could have been classified was possessed by demons or witchcraft.

Are you in a cult?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-01-2008, 04:00 PM
Are you in a cult?

Yes

Truth Warrior
06-01-2008, 09:37 PM
Before African Americans were brought to the United States to live in servitude, they lived quite peacefully in Africa with master Africans ruling over them. These primitive caste systems were the common choice of government all over the world. In these dynasties the typical function of government was to use elite teachers to train the prince to take his rightful place on the throne of his father. The inferior, poor children in contrast were never "corrupted" with teachings because their minds were considered to be beyond redemption to be enslaved perpetually to poverty.

Where these primitive caste systems were first challenged was in Plato's dialogue entitled "Meno." Socrates demonstrated clearly that a slave boy could improve his mind when a midwife-philosopher such as himself was willing to serve him.

The Greek concept of the "good life" was an idea of positive government which dispensed a degree of happiness to the ruled people, not just the perpetual poverty of the primitive caste systems.

Geeze, no wonder that the Romans kicked the Greeks butt's, and made them slaves too.

How many of the African slaves were sold or traded to the American "slavers" BY African "Master" slavers? Hell, they probably even usually met them at the beach. :rolleyes:

Blame it all on the Brits, we merely inherited THEIR barbaric slavery tradition.

Does slavery STILL exist anywhere in Africa? BTW, the answer is YES!

Aren't you merely making my historic case that government really sucks and always has, to put it very mildly?

So happiness is merely a gift and a blessing dispensed by governments? You're out of your fricken' mind. Or are you just smoking some really strange stuff.

Where'd you buy that "concept", on an Ebay "concept" clearance closeout fire sale? :rolleyes:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

Truth Warrior
06-01-2008, 10:00 PM
Parsing crap merely yields parsed crap.

As I tell my sons often, I'm not here to teach you but to assist the teacher by playing the part of an ideal student. I am now in the process of demonstrating to them how the U.S. government was formed with 2 formal documents. A divorce decree -- the Declaration of Independence -- and a marriage decree -- the U.S. Constitution.

[/quote]The American people, by and large, are both ignorant and apathetic, by design, and/or by choice. The tyrants count on this FACT and even expect it and profit from it.[/quote]

Never blame the people.

[/quote]The government just hates the competition, and claims a MONOPOLY of violence. Why is there ANY violent organized crime left, after all of these years? [/quote]

When you blame a government of the people, you blame the people.

[/quote]How much constitutes, "a large part of government"? [/quote]

The government would like to seperate itself from the criminals who they caste into their prisons and yet the government knowingly castes us into prisons to be abused in the anus. So, the government is both that part which does not abuse us in the anus and that part which does.

[/quote]The sign on Ron Paul's D.C. office desk reads, "DON'T STEAL! The government hates the competition." :D[/quote]

While Dr. Ron Paul seems willing to accept that the slaves should be freed, he doesn't seem to have enough vision to see that the master needs to be bound. If he king can spend unlimited amounts to seperate himself from the dinner table, the people can't be limited in the amount they can spend to bound him to the dinner table.
Look, I don't need a bayonet shoved into my belly and twisted around to accept the notion that the U.S. government has a social agenda. Some hateful people out there will just have to suffer this fate because one can't defeat the self evident and inalienable truths. Sorry.

[/quote]What FOUNDING FATHER (singular)? Establish??? Or was it merely a reality acknowledgment?[/quote]

Socrates. Socrates died to establish his ideas rather than continue living on in a primitive caste system.

[/quote]The Brits abolished slavery ( peacefully, BTW ), long before the USA government did.[/quote]

Listen here you ungrateful, unAmerican, God Damned son of a bitch. Move your antagonistic ass back to Britain then. Or who are you exactly? Canadian? It didn't do a damned thing to free the slaves in Britain. The Queen is still eating at her dinner table while she occasionally feints because the help failed to pick up a crumb off the carpet.
America didn't just free her slaves but she freed them to come and eat at the same dinner table as the master class. That is the American ideal. This nation has a clear history of binding her master class.
Indeed, African Americans just love to complain about how they were treated like wart hogs after their transportions to the nation of freedom while they fail to complain about how they were treated in Africa like butt hairs on the wart hog prior to that.
We aren't here to be freed as slaves; rather, we are here to be freed to come to the same dinner table that the master has been bound to remain. Let's get real here. We shouldn't attempt to achieve equality as a classless society when a much better lifestyle can be obtained by sitting as a classful one. A classful society is a national dinner table devoid of tyranny. If this notion makes your belly bitter, blame your founding fathers.

[/quote]The PEOPLE were NEVER even "invited" to the "national dinner table". The dinner was "cooked" in "secret" cabal coup proceedings, ( unauthorized AND illegal, BTW ). The entire affair was strictly "by invitation only". Non-Federalists need not inquire nor apply.[/quote]

Yes. The notions were cooked 2500 years ago. Socrates is the father of western civilization. Our founding fathers just carried the baton to the conclusion of self evident, inalienable truths.

[/quote]( You really do need some new material, metaphors and analogies. These are really getting old, very tiresome and are wearing very thin. )[/quote]

You are lost in the political issues of law makers and the legal precedents of lawyers. I'm just a citizen.

[/quote]Governments create, foster and nurture CHAOS and then respond with TYRANNY and merely call it ORDER.[/quote]

Law and disorder is chaos. A positive order with the necessary evil of law is civilization.

[/quote]And remember what the "STATE" did to Socrates.[/quote]

The State did nothing to Socrates because he had a choice. He could have chosen exile but instead preserved his ideals by choosing not to live any longer in a primitive caste society.

[/quote]Were you "schooled" in the "government" schools? [/quote]

I just don't understand this question.

[/quote]Government is a failed concept. How many chances to succeed should failed concepts be given. 6,000 years on the road to nowhere, seems like way more than enough chances, to me.[/quote]

You are both ignorant and wrong. Geeze. Look. If you read books you need to quit. Are you even careful when you read? Do you look for poison? Are you aware that your attitude is like stickers in the grass? You just serve to stumble and discourage for cripes sake. Is this virtuous to you?

[/quote]Meekly tolerated by ALL "happy" slaves always and everywhere. Better a "conscious" slave than a happy one.[/quote]

Yes. Let us divide the table into racial bickering. Now you've really done it. No! Go to hell. It is master and slave sitting at the same dinner table. If you don't have the intelligence to perceive the agenda behind the tactic, then perhaps you shouldn't be in the business of caring for people.

[/quote]"Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." -- Thomas Jefferson [/quote]

James Madison was greater than Thomas Jefferson -- Uncle Emanuel Watkins.[/quote]

Playing the "race card", of course. A desperation move, obviously. Not a good move in chess, at all.

I had no knowledge of your race, nor is it relevant, to me, in any way nor in even the slightest degree. I don't play "class","race", etc. "group-think","herd-mentality" people parsing collectivist BULLSHIT games. I leave those to others.

William Wilberforce ("The Liberator")
http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/huk-wilberforce.htm (http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/huk-wilberforce.htm)

Slavery Abolition Act 1833
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833)

Your abysmal ignorance of history is astounding, yet not any too surprising nor unprecedented. The scary thing is that the folks that think just like you never miss an opportunity to cast your idiotic votes.

"Those that do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

Enjoy your "Idiocracy" endless repetition, you really do deserve it, and your lazy sons.

NO TREASON.
The Constitution of no Authority.
BY LYSANDER SPOONER
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6 (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6)

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.


Checkmate! Game Over. We're done!

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-01-2008, 10:33 PM
Geeze, no wonder that the Romans kicked the Greeks butt's, and made them slaves too.

How many of the African slaves were sold or traded to the American "slavers" BY African "Master" slavers? Hell, they probably even usually met them at the beach. :rolleyes:

Blame it all on the Brits, we merely inherited THEIR barbaric slavery tradition.

Does slavery STILL exist anywhere in Africa? BTW, the answer is YES!

Aren't you merely making my historic case that government really sucks and always has, to put it very mildly?

So happiness is merely a gift and a blessing dispensed by governments? You're out of your fricken' mind. Or are you just smoking some really strange stuff.

Where'd you buy that "concept", on an Ebay "concept" clearance closeout fire sale? :rolleyes:

Your FIRST warning, start ANSWERING the questions asked!


"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

Okay.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-01-2008, 10:36 PM
Parsing crap merely yields parsed crap.

As I tell my sons often, I'm not here to teach you but to assist the teacher by playing the part of an ideal student. I am now in the process of demonstrating to them how the U.S. government was formed with 2 formal documents. A divorce decree -- the Declaration of Independence -- and a marriage decree -- the U.S. Constitution.

The American people, by and large, are both ignorant and apathetic, by design, and/or by choice. The tyrants count on this FACT and even expect it and profit from it.[/quote]

Never blame the people.

[/quote]The government just hates the competition, and claims a MONOPOLY of violence. Why is there ANY violent organized crime left, after all of these years? [/quote]

When you blame a government of the people, you blame the people.

[/quote]How much constitutes, "a large part of government"? [/quote]

The government would like to seperate itself from the criminals who they caste into their prisons and yet the government knowingly castes us into prisons to be abused in the anus. So, the government is both that part which does not abuse us in the anus and that part which does.

[/quote]The sign on Ron Paul's D.C. office desk reads, "DON'T STEAL! The government hates the competition." :D[/quote]

While Dr. Ron Paul seems willing to accept that the slaves should be freed, he doesn't seem to have enough vision to see that the master needs to be bound. If he king can spend unlimited amounts to seperate himself from the dinner table, the people can't be limited in the amount they can spend to bound him to the dinner table.
Look, I don't need a bayonet shoved into my belly and twisted around to accept the notion that the U.S. government has a social agenda. Some hateful people out there will just have to suffer this fate because one can't defeat the self evident and inalienable truths. Sorry.

[/quote]What FOUNDING FATHER (singular)? Establish??? Or was it merely a reality acknowledgment?[/quote]

Socrates. Socrates died to establish his ideas rather than continue living on in a primitive caste system.

[/quote]The Brits abolished slavery ( peacefully, BTW ), long before the USA government did.[/quote]

Listen here you ungrateful, unAmerican, God Damned son of a bitch. Move your antagonistic ass back to Britain then. Or who are you exactly? Canadian? It didn't do a damned thing to free the slaves in Britain. The Queen is still eating at her dinner table while she occasionally feints because the help failed to pick up a crumb off the carpet.
America didn't just free her slaves but she freed them to come and eat at the same dinner table as the master class. That is the American ideal. This nation has a clear history of binding her master class.
Indeed, African Americans just love to complain about how they were treated like wart hogs after their transportions to the nation of freedom while they fail to complain about how they were treated in Africa like butt hairs on the wart hog prior to that.
We aren't here to be freed as slaves; rather, we are here to be freed to come to the same dinner table that the master has been bound to remain. Let's get real here. We shouldn't attempt to achieve equality as a classless society when a much better lifestyle can be obtained by sitting as a classful one. A classful society is a national dinner table devoid of tyranny. If this notion makes your belly bitter, blame your founding fathers.

[/quote]The PEOPLE were NEVER even "invited" to the "national dinner table". The dinner was "cooked" in "secret" cabal coup proceedings, ( unauthorized AND illegal, BTW ). The entire affair was strictly "by invitation only". Non-Federalists need not inquire nor apply.[/quote]

Yes. The notions were cooked 2500 years ago. Socrates is the father of western civilization. Our founding fathers just carried the baton to the conclusion of self evident, inalienable truths.

[/quote]( You really do need some new material, metaphors and analogies. These are really getting old, very tiresome and are wearing very thin. )[/quote]

You are lost in the political issues of law makers and the legal precedents of lawyers. I'm just a citizen.

[/quote]Governments create, foster and nurture CHAOS and then respond with TYRANNY and merely call it ORDER.[/quote]

Law and disorder is chaos. A positive order with the necessary evil of law is civilization.

[/quote]And remember what the "STATE" did to Socrates.[/quote]

The State did nothing to Socrates because he had a choice. He could have chosen exile but instead preserved his ideals by choosing not to live any longer in a primitive caste society.

[/quote]Were you "schooled" in the "government" schools? [/quote]

I just don't understand this question.

[/quote]Government is a failed concept. How many chances to succeed should failed concepts be given. 6,000 years on the road to nowhere, seems like way more than enough chances, to me.[/quote]

You are both ignorant and wrong. Geeze. Look. If you read books you need to quit. Are you even careful when you read? Do you look for poison? Are you aware that your attitude is like stickers in the grass? You just serve to stumble and discourage for cripes sake. Is this virtuous to you?

[/quote]Meekly tolerated by ALL "happy" slaves always and everywhere. Better a "conscious" slave than a happy one.[/quote]

Yes. Let us divide the table into racial bickering. Now you've really done it. No! Go to hell. It is master and slave sitting at the same dinner table. If you don't have the intelligence to perceive the agenda behind the tactic, then perhaps you shouldn't be in the business of caring for people.

[/quote]"Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." -- Thomas Jefferson [/quote]

James Madison was greater than Thomas Jefferson -- Uncle Emanuel Watkins.[/quote]

Slavery Abolition Act 1833
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833)

Your abysmal ignorance is astounding, yet not any too surprising nor unprecedented. The scary thing is that folks just like you never miss an opportunity to cast your idiotic votes.

Enjoy your Idiocracy, you deserve it, and your lazy sons.

NO TREASON.
The Constitution of no Authority.
BY LYSANDER SPOONER
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6 (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6)

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.


Checkmate! We're done![/QUOTE]

Fair enough.