susano
Member

I fear that you are correct on this point, and that what you have asserted is in fact correct on a vast array of similar "social" issues. This is why I have come to so strongly suspect that a Grand Reset Event (GRE) may now be the only salvation possible, excluding the usual religious offerings. Reality raw must now assert itself in ways I am sure most people would hope unnecessary. We sat on our hands way too long and so here we stand, in a very tight corner. Imagine GenZ attempting to run the world... I will be mercifully gone by then, though I further suspect that there will be something of a comedic aspect to it all. I can see it all now... Prezident Rainbow in his multicolor suit of pastels, double-dong buttplug waving about in the spring air as it protrudes so proudly from the suit's patented buttplug display vent, making zir's State of the DemoKrazy speech, all lispy, wild, and wonderful... "Michelle" Obama at zir's right side, ten-inch cock prominently displayed as Hillary watches, thinking to itself "hold my beer" with its 13 inches held in reserve. "Idiocracy" wasn't a comedy. It was a declaration of Things To Come.

There is very little that surprises me, and this has been so for a long year. The degree to which this is the case makes the fact that I almost swallowed my tongue in utter disbelief the other day stand as some testament to the depth of my reaction. I despise NPR, almost to the point of hatred. But I listen to them a bit here and there so as to be a little better tuned in to what the enemy is thinking. And so it was about three days ago when NPR news reported that some Russian official declared the drone strikes on Moscow as "terrorist" acts perpetrated by Ukraine against the Russian people. I was driving to work and thought I'd nearly go into a utility pole. "Shocked" doesn't cover it, nor "gobsmacked". Literally, I was driving down the highway with my fly-catcher wide, as all I was able to utter was "wow". The irony of this passes absurd.

This would seem to be a scheme for distributing such weapons to (perhaps) specific recipients to whom "we" could not legally give them. Could there be a bigger conspiracy going on here? Perhaps the Russia/Ukraine war has been seized upon as a means of getting those weapons into hands via the good old "fog of war" channels. This sudden apotheosis of Ukraine really makes no sense, especially that the "left" seems so worshipful of those scurrilous pricks. But if the real wish is to equip, say, the cartels without leaving a damning paper trail, so to speak, then this would be a good way. Fire up the hand-wriinging... oh the po' PO' Ukrainians be needing help from we, the freedom-loving Americans... have to arm them to the tunes of countless billions, and so forth, part of the deal being that x% will find its way to whatever recipients suit Theire wishes. Just a thought, anyway.

You are ignoring the more significant portion of my position: that where conflicts exist between state powers and individual rights, that rights trump synthetic, arbitrary powers. That is by all means a philosophical argument. As for contradictions, no. I didn't think I'd have to spell it all out, but here goes: as for contracts, that concerns synthetic agreements between willing parties. As for Law, that derives from the fundamental nature of relations between individual human beings. There is nothing arbitrary about them. A man may deny gravity all they want, but I'd bet money I don't have that when I have him on the precipice of the old WTC towers, he'd be plenty reticent to take that step off. And were he fool enough to do so, there would be a most satisfying <SPLAT> just about ten seconds later. SYNTHETIC obligations - i.e. obligations based on arbitrary agreements that satisfy the interests of all parties thereto. Law is different. The type of which I speak is immutable. It never changes, and and it applies to all men, which is what makes it sacred.

I was not. I was making a philosophical argument, using the 4th and 9th as mere examples of our own Law. I don't taint myself with mere legality. I focus solely on Law, which speaks solely to that which is right, or not, between men, based in principles deriving from the inherent nature of those relationships. Legality is a network scam of arbitrary declarations based on the whim and caprice of a jerkoff, or set thereof, purporting to speak with authority that even the most cursory examination reveals as the fraud that it is. Is it your contention that some humans have the right to force from other humans the fruits of their labors - of their rightful properties? If so, then that property was never theirs in the first place. Furthermore, from such a basic presumption, one stands but a small step or two away from justifying slavery, the contention being that if one man is entitled to my product, it is therefore actually HIS product, which implies that the means of arriving at that product is also his. Must I spell out what is so very clear? One man becomes in effect another's property. Is this what you believe? Who, exactly did this? I sure as hell didn't, nor would I ever. I am not bound by the arbitrary agreements of others. I am not a party to such contracts and as such am unbound by anything therein. I am bound only by the Law, and that derives solely and purely from the principles of proper human relations, which in their turn derive from the very nature of those relationships. That particular nature is simple in the extreme, and is provably so when one strips away all the noise and other bullshit that people have heaped upon the idea for thousands of years. A fine and sufficient nutshell of all that can be found in the Golden Rule, which is itself perfect and in no need of any improvement. But it does require intellect, smarts, and individual integrity.

Not quite clear on what you mean by this? OK, but by your reasoning, it is a short hop to "we are all slaves of gravity". This world is limited in certain, and I confidently assume very well considered, ways. I take your point well, but to adopt such a view is self-defeating, IMO. The proverbial "gravity issues" are fact. They constitute a very significant part of our realities and are, thus far, unbreakable. Until we figure ways around them, much as we figured our way into powered flight and putting men into orbit, they remain as unbreakable circumscriptions upon our choices. Why fret such matters when to do so is perfectly futile? The precise same may be said of God's graces. We remain limited by certain factors of reality. It makes us no less free, if we choose to see things that way. An there, my pal, is the real rub. This is where the tyrants manage their black magick - it lies in the boundaries Theye draw. God bounds us. Nature bounds us. Tyrants, too, bound us, albeit far more tightly than either of the former, and they get away with it for no other reason than the fact that we do not rise to butcher them and their innocent children. Might may not make right, but at the end of the day it makes reality. It's all bullshit, but it is nonetheless that with which we must put up precisely because we are too corrupted with whatever failings to become the monsters we were born to be under certain circumstances. And that is why I say this is ALL on us. The rational, reasonable, and honest man does not blame the viper with which he tried to make friends when the snake bites him. So it is with the sorts of men who seek power and control over others. That we fail to murder them to the man is the great evil we bring down upon ourselves. It is ugly and no good man wants to do it, but to be such a coward as to allow the lives of one's own children to be unnecessarily and unjustly ruined by those who do evil as matters of the blood circulating through their veins, is not forgivable. And that is where we all stand at this moment. Theye will never stop until we stop them. It is a simple as that. Diplomacy will not work. Sitting in a global-sized circle singing songs will not work. Naught but brute force, applied with no hint of reticence or other equivocation will Theye accept. Destruction of the enemies of liberty is the only way to ensure freedom remains every man's reality who wishes it. As for those seeking to be guided through their lives, every step, leave them to the damnation they impose upon themselves, so long as they make no effort to spread their cancers to others. And when they do, serve unto them the same fate as you would to "government". Destroy them; stamp out their genetic line. When this is the reward for crimes against one's fellows, behavior suddenly improves, as if by miracle.

That's close enough to BINGO to call it. Well stated. That said, time will prove the kitten just how woefully mistaken he is.

Clearly there is no reasoning with you. You make blind, unsupported assertions, implicitly assuming some moral high ground, which in fact you do not hold. Whatever gets you through your days is OK by me. You stab at irrelevancies in the weak attempt to discredit me and appear as if you had something of value to offer. Seriously little pal, you need a whole lot more game if you wish to fence with a cagey old bastard such as myself. Once again, what is your point, beyond the weak and obvious?

Ah... I'm slow, but you've probably figured that out by now.

With which one?

I think we are all to blame. The history of America is the ultimate human tragedy, and not because of <URP> <DERP> slavery. Once free of the king's immediate clutches, we should have become as wild and ravening predators, ready to bring to death anyone from "government" who dared so much as suggest some measure that would in even the least measure tiptoe upon the rights of free men. But we had everything against us. Our general Christian/Jewish upbringings and the mannerliness of those cultures pretty well guaRONteed we'd no become the monsters we should have been in response to the least measure of "governmental" trespass. Then there was the thousands of years of breeding to the king's halter. One does not escape that so easily. Then there are the deep and manifold flaws of the Constitution which we have failed to correct. Each successive failure built upon all those of the past, and now here we stand. Some of it could perhaps not have been helped, given the overall circumstances, but I think most of it could have. We chose.

Let us assume this is not only true, but that we are working with a reasonable definition of "selfishness". So what? Here you are parroting one of the left's most repulsive talking points - their endlessly idiotic tirade in condemnation of "selfishness". Surely you can do better than this... if you wanted to. Meaningless, substance-free assertion. What are you peddling here? Oh do go on while I break out my one-inch violin.

Your argument founds on assumptions false, and ignores the conflict between the granted power and the inherent right. Where a granted power conflicts with an inherent right, there is no argument to be made in favor of the power over the right. The very notion of holding a granted power above an inherent right tap-dances merrily past absurdity. My rights trump any "governmental" power. Period. My rights, and yours, are inherent to what we are. "Government" powers are synthetic and perforce arbitrary. It should require no hint of rocket surgery to dope out which of the two stands supreme. Proponents of the opposite view can rant and fart and vomit their idiocies contrary to glaring truth until the cows come home - to put a synthetic, and frankly a bullshit power above the inborn rights of a man, any man, is raving insanity. It is stupidity so wild as to defy words.

I think I covered the possibilities. The "big one" would be a constitutional amendment, the toughest to pull off, but SCOTUS-proof. Fixed that fer ye.

You can't even be serious. There is no possible way that this was accidental. Not even the remotest possibility exists. It is high likelihood, but in this case the carried risk is also high, if optics are in any way important to SCOTUS, which history seems to suggest they are not. The out would be this: SCOTUS hears relevant case, decides correctly, and Congress then destroys what little credibility remains them and does just as you suggest. The reql question would then rest once again with SCOTUS, after which and assuming the right outcome, would leave Congress in a bit of a bind. I would not, however, trust them to give up so readily. They could attack this at a policy-level, which would be a sucky remedy, but still would perhaps be better than nothing. I would expect them to attempt an Amendment which, if successfully ratified, would de-ball SCOTUS on the question. That would be the ultimate as it would by definition be "constitutional".

A couple of observations. Let us begin with the relatively trivial point of "error". This was no error of omission. When properly considered, anyone with an IQ will immediately see that the implications of those sixteens words are quite literally staggering, and I cannot overstate this point. This omission was by all means intentional and malevolently committed, make no mistake about that. Whether the Reviser took it upon himself to commit this most heinously treasonous omission for which he should have been drawn and quartered, or some third party strong-armed him into it, the actual Law (and I intentionally capitalize "Law" because in this case the statute qualifies as such) remains what it is and by all means must be restored to perfection. This should be demanded in shrieking stridency by every American on the planet, regardless of political affiliation. Even the lefties should be out burning down cities or whatever the hell it is they do these days, to make their voice heard on this matter. Secondly, and in a way more significantly as hinted at above, the implications of the restoration of these sixteen words are beyond mere numbers. What those words do is to reiterate and reinforce the specifications of the BoR with great force. The implications are deep, broad, and extend to the visible horizon, touching literally everything in our current jurisprudence. It destroys ALL unconstitutional Acts passed into statutory law. It even destroys the Article I power to tax. A man walking armed down a Manhattan street, arrested and charged for violating Sullivan, could then sue the pants off the city and bring criminal charges against basically everyone involved in the crimes committed against his sovereign rights.

Cue Rand Paul assassination in 4... 3...

I find it interesting that a guy like Epstein failed to employ one of the simplest, most obvious, and effective strategies imaginable to ensure his life against the supposed fate he suffered in a jail cell just as the camera(s) coincidentally failed. Had I been in his place I would have proceeded as follows. I would have secured the services of at least six lawyers whose job it would have been to release all the various evidence into the public domain, including all the major national papers, etc., upon my demise. Each new victim of mine would be alerted to the fact that I had multiple agents in my employ who would be doing this. They would not be made privy to the nature of those agents, their number, names, and so on. Only that they existed and not to test me on the matter. After the first contact with such agents, there would be no further contact. They would be paid on an ongoing basis to maintain their end of the agreement. I would establish a separate site onto which they could login, where they would see naught but a button that was to be pressed in the event of my demise, delivering all data to various sources. This way, the guilty would be exposed no matter what. I find it interesting that a man as treacherous as Epstein would not have concocted a plan at least this good, if not better. Perhaps he did? Perhaps he is not at all dead? However unlikely it may seem, when one is holding in his hands the balls of so many powerful people, it becomes a little more than difficult to accept that he was so incredibly blind in this most critical respect, regarding his own crimes. against those victims. Was he buried? Cremated? Just curious. If the latter, add a few more grains of suspicion to my plate.

RE: the FBI's shenanigans. The question this raises in my mind is why has the FBI done what it has done and continues to do. The trivial answer of "corruption" is unsatisfying. The real question is who is behind it all? Who is driving the FBI in this manner? Who is the nameless person or people who are pulling the strings for real?

Wish I could say otherwise, but that's a sucker bet. Sigh.

I read the exec summary. The findings were aptly described as "sobering". Will there be any prosecutorial action in response? I'm not holding my breath.

Allow me to correct you. This is how this particular thing started:

Asking OpenAI's chatgpt to compare austrian business cycle theory to keynesian. Uncensored models running locally can do it. Theirs can NOT! http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?1191-The-NoSpam-Picture-Thread&bt=2006

If you see that MSM is dying, then guaRONtee Theye also see it. Consider that Theye are not going to just let themselves be defeated and I fully believe that they are precisely the sorts to see the entire world burn if they cannot have it. Finally, consider that MSM is a mere tool for Themme and that they will use it for as long as they must to achieve whatever plateau- or ultimate-goal they have set for themselves. Since Theye hold all the material power that counts in that they can keep the MSM artificially afloat for as long as they are able, the "collapse" you assume to be coming, isn't in the way I assume you to be imagining. By the time the "collapse" comes, which I assume to mean that effectively nobody is paying attention any longer, Theye will either be ready to spring the coup de grace, or will have already done so, in either case meaning the collapse is meaningless. By then, whether it has happened, it will make no matter to Themme. Theye will be in position or will have won the ultimate battle for dominion and we will be in need of more Preparation-H than even God could produce. So don't go looking for that as any sign that salvation is nigh, because short of Jesus stepping out of a crack in the sky, we are going to be ready for a fork. I'm thinking we may already be there, given what I see happening all over, every day. Hopefully, I'm wrong about everything.

In this scheme of energetic government, the people will find two sets of tax-gatherers—the state and the federal sheriffs. This, it seems to me, will produce such dreadful oppression as the people cannot possibly bear. The federal sheriff may commit what oppression, make what distresses, he pleases, and ruin you with impunity; for how are you to tie his hands? Have you any sufficiently decided means of preventing him from sucking your blood by speculations, commissions, and fees? Thus thousands of your people will be most shamefully robbed: our state sheriffs, those unfeeling blood-suckers, have, under the watchful eye of our legislature, committed the most horrid and barbarous ravages on our people. It has required the most constant vigilance of the legislature to keep them from totally ruining the people; a repeated succession of laws has been made to suppress their iniquitous speculations and cruel extortions; and as often has their nefarious ingenuity devised methods of evading the force of those laws: in the struggle they have generally triumphed over the legislature. It is a fact that lands have been sold for five shillings, which were worth one hundred pounds: if sheriffs, thus immediately under the eye of our state legislature and judiciary, have dared to commit these outrages, what would they not have done if their masters had been at Philadelphia or New York? If they perpetrate the most unwarrantable outrage on your person or property, you cannot get redress on this side of Philadelphia or New York; and how can you get it there? If your domestic avocations could permit you to go thither, there you must appeal to judges sworn to support this Constitution, in opposition to that of any state, and who may also be inclined to favor their own officers. When these harpies are aided by excisemen, who may search, at any time, your houses, and most secret recesses, will the people bear it? If you think so, you differ from me. Where I thought there was a possibility of such mischiefs, I would grant power with a niggardly hand; and here there is a strong probability that these oppressions shall actually happen. I may be told that it is safe to err on that side, because such regulations may be made by Congress as shall restrain these officers, and because laws are made by our representatives, and judged by righteous judges: but, sir, as these regulations may be made, so they may not; and many reasons there are to induce a belief that they will not. I shall therefore be an infidel on that point till the day of my death. This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints towards monarchy; and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American? Your President may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this government, although horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, from the eastern to the western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.

^^^ An effective declaration of war on our freedoms and property, yet nobody puts a slug in her? One more time: this is war. What do people do in war? Must it be spelled out? Are there other solutions available to us? If so, we're not using them because that nitwit is still occupying her seat, as is the case with most such office holders from sea to shining sea. It seems clear that the people whom she represents want things as she sees them. But I am quite certain not all of them are on board, so what of their wishes and their rights? This is why war is upon us. Nobody in their right mind gives a shit whether the majority of people in Denver want to live like communists. They do, however, care about the disinterested minority who continue to cherish their freedom and their rights. They are the reason the great mass of Americans should be rising up and making it clear to all traitors to liberty either to step off or lose their lives. Can nobody see that they are felons committing very mass-scale felonies against the free people of America with their despotic tyrannies, and that all propriety pursuant to our natural, God-given liberties dictate they should be ousted from office and from our shores, or even killed outright? When a robber threatens you on the street, what is the proper response? All else equal, you remove his ability to pose that threat, which usually means delivering to him grave bodily injury, or taking his life which he has forfeited by his own choice. This is right, proper, and just action. So why, when a "politician" issues an equal threat in equally felonious fashion, do we routinely and dare I say universally, kowtow like quivering serfs? HELLO?! We deserve what we tolerate. The "government" isn't doing the right things, so we have no recourse there. What will it take to make people act in their own better interests, in the interest of liberty? I have asked this question many times in these fora: will Americans ever show even the least epsilon of self-respect and stand in effective material opposition to those who defile us through the trespass of our rights? I have expressed my dolefully offered suspicion that the answer is "no", and thus far I am proven correct. We as a people have no respect for ourselves, and no real love for our children (all indignant protest to the contrary notwithstanding), demonstrated and proven by our idle tolerance of every outrage heaped upon us while we give the old "can't fight city hall" shrug of our slouched shoulders. The cancers of wokeness and transgenderism, with parents allowing their five year olds to make life-destroying choices are but two examples of the wild idiocies now being normalized, the results of which will one day come back to haunt the race of men.

Those "liberals" are eating your lunch and removing your rights. You'd damned better start taking them seriously.