Stop this now!

[Whodoe!]

Would you mind clarifying in more simple terms?

[grandpa]

Throughout history, the Muslims have been the most violent people in the world. They built cruel empires that committed numerous genocides by virtually annihilating races like the Aztecs, Incas, and the Aboriginal populations.

That's such a loaded statement. In reality, history has shown every major expansionist religion to be almost equally violent. If you are going to tell me diffrent you would almost have to be out of your mind.

Grandpa h.

[Jack]

The above is a none-too-clever spoof, as explain by the original author (it's always good to give attributations, coldheat, instead of posting something as if it were your own creation, unless you were the original author);

Anyway, I began to think about those two word responses, and thought of the possibility of my being both, wrong and a “sand nigger”. There after, I renounced all my previous writings, written whilst I was clearly misguided and brainwashed by the Arabs and Muslim terrorists. What the neo-cons are saying makes perfect sense, indeed Bush is guided by the Divine. Listed below is my new view of history and the world. So, let us proceed with the issues, fasten your seat belts, sit tight and I will show you the world according to the neo-cons, Zionists, right-wing Republicans, fundamentalist Christians and the KKK.

[rmnunez]

The Muslims never slaughtered an Aztec, those were the Spaniards.

[grandpa]

Sorry, Coldheat. I didn't realize you were pulling a spoof. I should have read the entire article before responding.

Grandpa h.

[Rainbow]

#1
Then it should be obvious they retain all power. Not under certain circumstances, but ALWAYS.

#2
Respect, respect for themselves, being able to sleep at night, being able to look in the mirror, knowing when they say something that they mean it.

There is no honor in being a hypocrite, and right now this nation is full of them, because they endorse both major parties on voting day, but whine for change the other 364. But I am not offering it, I am pointing to it, and saying when you hear the flushing sound, you will know it is because you haven't been paying attention to the men behind the curtain.
I don't want to be a leader, nor am I seeking that spotlight, but if I was the only one man enough to jump in that light, I surely wouldn't back down if it meant the entire movement was lost. My goals aren't mine, they are the Constitution, the LAW OF THE LAND.

#3
Have you ever read about the REAL United States Rainbow? Was the revolution against England, idealism? Was the food that they ate here from their farms, their trading, idealism? Were their jobs created from idealism? Were the doctors of that day paid by big brother, or the customer? Was prosperity handed out in government jobs?

The free market, and independent businessmen BUILT this nation after the rebels won the war. Their as you call "ideology" is what they put in law, a thing they called the Constitution. I know you think this is a novel piece of art, to be viewed and gazed at through glass, but it is not. IT IS LAW. Everything else, that has come since, is a sideshow, to seperate you from your money, while still keeping you just happy enough, that you keep working, to make them more money.

#4
My argument is this.

If this country want to continue being the United States of America, the establishment had better insure that they stay within the limitations of the Constitution, since the Constitution is all that binds these states. It says within itself, it is a contract between the people, the states, and the Federal Government and the only one that has the power to break that contract is the PEOPLE.

If this country wants to be what it has become today, which is an entity that mingles capitalist and socialist economic policy, with "arranged" democracy, no checks or balances, then they had BETTER start admitting they no longer are bound under the Constitution, and its time to create a new one.

That is my entire argument. It is quite simple, is it not? Admit you are doing wrong and change things, or get back in line with the rules. Is that not fair?

The problem is they can't yet. They know there are too many people like me, still out here, willing to die in the fight for the government renigging on its contract with the people.
Until that can be accomplished, the sideshow will continue, and the sheeple will flock.

#5
Show me where that is the government responsibility in the Constitution? I didn't know the government was supposed to be a job placement service? :rolleyes: You sure you're not a Socialist??

The government creates an enviroment, that is reflective of the people under the Constitution. It allows states to cater their laws to a point, within constitutional guidelines.
It is this varied climate of laws and varying regulation that intrests people, and people generate business. People have needs, this necessitates services and goods. With a free market, everybody prospers, since demand determines supply. It is how this nation was built.

The government said, live here, live free and make America great. Our land is some of the most prime land on earth for farming, resources, climate and overall variety. It is good land based just on that. Add to that a political climate that encourages freedom and justice, based on equality and you have the nearest thing to utopia the planet has ever seen. That is when we started this nation.

Now we still have good land, resources and global climate, but our government has become ALMOST as restrictive as those we have beaten down as enemies in the past. It may still be the best one out there, but it aint saying much if regulation has been increased the world over. Our goverments climate, that once attracted business, now is scaring business away. Our politicians have shown that their opinions change with the economic wind. Our leaders have bold face lied, to their own people, and to other nations. We have lost our national respect on a level never seen before, and it is all because we couldn't follow a simple system designed to perform a single function.

To do jobs the states could not do, to ensure safety from foreign enemies, and to set limits on state reach. Instead, they let the system run itself, and expand its boundaries on the whims of leaders and representatives. They let them set their own watermark for responsibility and accountability. They let them CHANGE THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME.

The citizens have let down their side of the contract also, by allowing this to happen.

#1
It is physically impossible the People to have control over its state always, at least at the stage the science and technology supply us all today.

#2
I agree that Respect is a significant factor, but it does not supply the People with vital (to the People) key elements for survival, like : food, jobs, ect.
The People may look in(to) many mirrors, but that activity is not going to fill their pockets with money, give them jobs, pay their bills, ect.

#3
I used the word "idealism" with a reference to your whole 3-in-1 post.
Am I correct that you are : idealist ?

Washington's goals differed significantly to these you state.
G. Washington's task : freedom for the state
Your tasks : improve and/or bring the system to its originally established fundaments for the state

#4
As long as We all are obligated by the Constitution and the Law (to be followed), We need to stay within their parameters, regardless of the "onomastics" that may be applied, respectively.
As far as I perceive U.S. - as a state, there is no need for a physical battle in order to re-shape U.S.'s Constitutional and Law fundaments, since U.S. is a sovereign state. Use of force within a state is the worst scenario that can be followed. No one needs to sacrifice its own life, to bring the Constitution and the Law to their bases.
(That is why I mentioned the French Revolution as an example).

In a free state, We have political means to execute all the Constitution and the Law paragraphs to be respected, followed, ect.

Your offer is limited to overthrowing a governing body.
Are you going to repace Mankind, as well ?
Do you think that the People within a new governing body will differ to today's governing body ? (We are all People, and only.)

You seem to omit the key issue(s) :
- one must create "mechanisms" that would allow the People to control a governing body, in case a governing body does not have a "desire" to stay within the Constitution and the Law

Example (this is an example, only !) :
- "Patriot Act" (v.2 or higher, to come)
The "Act" itself limits individuals' freedom. That is the fact.
On the other hand, it protects the very same individual against any terror-related activity.

We have a "bill" (read : "Patriot Act") that may be used as an "instrument" to fight terrorism. However, that "instrument" may be used for variety of other purposes.
What the People do, then ?
The People "cry out loud" that in-justice being applied (to them) that limits their freedom, but the very same People do nothing to create "mechanisms" that may limit a governing body's executive offices' eventual influence on that very same People.

Do you know why the People fail and/or neglect to create that "mechanism" ?
The base for that issue resides within U.S. educational system.
You can not replace Mankind, but you can educate Mankind. That task takes a very long time.

#5
It seems that you are "idealist", indeed :-)))
I am not any "socialist" of any kind.

A governing body (U.S. government, in this case) creates jobs, by developing policies within a state that promote business enterprise, free market, ect.
That is exactly a governing body's responsibility to provide the People with jobs and business opportunities.
The Constitution and the Law draw the lines, borders, ect. for that governing body's acceptable (by and for the People) solutions.

Generally, I understand your points and I agreee that some changes need to be made and/or undertaken, in order the Constitution and the Law to be respected by all the state's inhabitants.
Since you can not replace Mankind, you need to use political means to achieve your goals.

Example :
A senator (elected by the People within your community) does not present your community's stance in the U.S. Senate.
Why do not you demand that senator's removal ?
Because, your community has not created any "mechanism" to apply such one, remove that senator, choose a new one who represents your community interests.

Who is that "guilty" party, then :
- a governing body
or
- the People
???

P.S.
I - Rainbow - separated the originally created and/or expressed thoughts - submitted by Osborn F Enready, in order to distinguish subjects within (it), respectively.

[Milton Bradley]

You seem to omit the key issue(s) :
- one must create "mechanisms" that would allow the People to control a governing body, in case a governing body does not have a "desire" to stay within the Constitution and the Law

You almost answered yourself there.


The law is the mechanism used to make the government honor its oath. That is why they are required to swear an oath to protect the constitution. That is why there are established definitions forwhat is criminal, and the punishment handed down to those who commit those crmes.


Unfortunately, the governmet has moved beyond honoring the law, or telling the truth, and they already appoint the Judges that would try them if they ever were to go in front of a court of law.


That is truly a jury of ones peers.

[Osborn F Enready]

Rainbows words in italics, mine in regular type.

#1
It is physically impossible the People to have control over its state always, at least at the stage the science and technology supply us all today.

I say:
I would like to know what would give you that idea? That is a vague blanketing statement. Yes, I know that technology exists, and has made certain things difficult, but nothing has become so difficult that we can not stay within the bounds of the Constitution and still acheive the desired effect.

#2
I agree that Respect is a significant factor, but it does not supply the People with vital (to the People) key elements for survival, like : food, jobs, ect.
The People may look in(to) many mirrors, but that activity is not going to fill their pockets with money, give them jobs, pay their bills, ect.

I say:
You were saying before, idealism doesn't provide jobs, yada yada yada, and I ANSWERED that clearly, by saying a FREE MARKET provides jobs, and small business provided jobs, and entrepreneurial spirit is what provides jobs, food, and provides the society the chance to flourish.
Go to the site I list below, and take a look at population numbers and how well this society flourished as population influxed from all over the world. This site has census numbers dating from 1790 to present.

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/

There were plenty of ideas fueling the "free market" back then, as the free market ACTUALLY existed instead of the over-regulated inflation controlling setup that we currently use. There was citizen oversight of corporate charters, there were BARRIERS between government and citizen privacy, yet all was well and growing, and PROVIDING for the people, without GOVERNMENT MANDATE. Times have changed, but the American spirit has not. We do not give up easily, nor do we run from a challenge, as history shows. The problem is we have been lulled to sleep by the "self perceived" security to the point we don't recognize the enemy within. Chart the deviation from Constitutional limitations and you will see that bi-partisanship coincides with that, and is closely followed by the New Deal, which brings about the removal of practically the entire system as written. (no more checks and balances, supreme executive privlidge, reduced congressional power)

#3
I used the word "idealism" with a reference to your whole 3-in-1 post.
Am I correct that you are : idealist ?

I say:
EVERYONE is an idealist to a degree, so yes, I of course am one of everyone. To deny that you have ideals, is to admit you have no grounding, no identifying character, no values with which you embrace. So yea, I am an idealist with pride, and I wear my values on my sleeve! Simply because you choose to classify my in this way, does not mean I do not use the same elements of problem disection, fact analyzation or other means to determine an answer to a problem.

Washington's goals differed significantly to these you state.
G. Washington's task : freedom for the state

I say:
I find it almost hysterical, that you could classify his task as this simple, 4 word statement. I can only say that yes, one of his goals was an amount of freedom for the state, but to say that was the scope of his task, is a true understatement to which few compare.

Your tasks : improve and/or bring the system to its originally established fundaments for the state

I say:
My task is quite simple, and it can not quite be summarized like that. It can best be summarized by saying "I want to restore Constitutional Limitations to the United States Federal Government once again, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS." Do not read more into it, do not try to re-word it, as it is plain and simple to understand as it is written. A part of that would be to restore States Rights also, so yes, partially true.

[Osborn F Enready]

#4
As long as We all are obligated by the Constitution and the Law (to be followed), We need to stay within their parameters, regardless of the "onomastics" that may be applied, respectively.

I say:
The reach and practices of federal government is limited by the Constitution, the citizens rights are outlined in the Bill of rights. The Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government, and outlines the limits of State government.

As far as I perceive U.S. - as a state, there is no need for a physical battle in order to re-shape U.S.'s Constitutional and Law fundaments, since U.S. is a sovereign state.

I say:
Yes, the U.S. is sovereign, but it is a conglomeration of states bound together under a common power, that is limited by contract of its people and the states respectively. The only requirement for physical battle is if the people deem the government no longer representative of their goals, or no longer in alignment with its AGREED to rules of operation, and ability to operate in THEIR NAME.

Use of force within a state is the worst scenario that can be followed. No one needs to sacrifice its own life, to bring the Constitution and the Law to their bases.
(That is why I mentioned the French Revolution as an example).

I say:
NO man can competently judge singularly what extent, or what process will follow once it is deemed by a portion of the people that the government has overstepped its bounds. Times have changed significantly, and though the loss of life of citizens is the LAST resort to re-align the government with its people, it is a realistic, and effective measure as last resort, under any circumstance. Let us realize what depth of consciousness we are discussing here..... WE are talking about the ability of the people to resist possession by a government, not representation.

In a free state, We have political means to execute all the Constitution and the Law paragraphs to be respected, followed, ect.

Your offer is limited to overthrowing a governing body.
Are you going to repace Mankind, as well ?
Do you think that the People within a new governing body will differ to today's governing body ? (We are all People, and only.)

I say:
I am not making an offer, and you are generalizing again. You are ignoring the points I have made about a misinformed populace. Do you not see the difficulty in realizing a problem, when at every step the problem is mis-represented, mis-reported, mis-given?
People, mankind, will always be the same in the sense that they are INTELLIGENT people, and if PROVIDED or ALLOWED to research the information they need to make an INTELLIGENT decision, they usually prevail. I want to make it so that people, are informed, understand their rights, as well as the government limitations to interfere in those rights, and once again RE-ALIGN the federal government with the United States constitution. There have been changes concerning the laws of this society that have not been challenged, by the society itself due to mis-representation, or complete ignorance of the changes effects due to lack of representation.

You seem to omit the key issue(s) :
- one must create "mechanisms" that would allow the People to control a governing body, in case a governing body does not have a "desire" to stay within the Constitution and the Law

I say:
Those mechanisms are in place already, and it is called the LAW under the Constitution.
There is no such mechanism as you speak of that could be created in a way to isolate from corruption, if it is part of the mechanism itself. If you are part of the mechanism, you are able to be corrupted. The mechanism THAT MUST BE USED, is the eyes, ears, and participation of the people, to ACTIVELY limit the governments reach, by DEMANDING the Constitution be respected.

Example (this is an example, only !) :
- "Patriot Act" (v.2 or higher, to come)
The "Act" itself limits individuals' freedom. That is the fact.
On the other hand, it protects the very same individual against any terror-related activity.

I say:
ROFLMAO
Anyone that believes a piece of paper protects them from terror is a fool and an imbecile. To have absolute protection in a free or UNFREE society is impossible, as anytime people intermingle in numbers greater than 1, there is a chance for death if the attacker is willing to die for his cause. So let me guess, if this paper had been signed before 9/11, would an invisible barrier have surrounded the Towers to "protect those people from terror related activity"?? :rolleyes: People that believe in things like this DESERVE NO SECURITY, OR LIBERTY!!!!

We have a "bill" (read : "Patriot Act") that may be used as an "instrument" to fight terrorism. However, that "instrument" may be used for variety of other purposes.
What the People do, then ?

I say:
Form large groups to protest outside the White House, Congress, and their representatives doors, DEMANDING ACTION TO REPEAL, or pay the price.
That price is a formal petititon for Redress of Grievance, or Revolt if the Redress is not addressed.

The People "cry out loud" that in-justice being applied (to them) that limits their freedom, but the very same People do nothing to create "mechanisms" that may limit a governing body's executive offices' eventual influence on that very same People.

I say:
That mechanism you speak of is arms, and in case you haven't noticed, since the removal of the Assault Weapons Ban, Assault Weapons have been selling by the CASELOAD.

Do you know why the People fail and/or neglect to create that "mechanism" ?
The base for that issue resides within U.S. educational system.
You can not replace Mankind, but you can educate Mankind. That task takes a very long time.

I say:
On this point, I 100% agree, and the state of our nation is directly reflective at the subversion of our national education by the framing and intent, execution and motive of our public educational system. This is why I am making so much noise about this issue. If you have a nanny-government system raising your kids, the kids will naturally want more of nanny-governments motives to be fulfilled, since they are operating under the influence of their indoctrination.

#5
It seems that you are "idealist", indeed :-)))
I am not any "socialist" of any kind.

I say:
I call'em like I see'em. Sorry if I offended you.

A governing body (U.S. government, in this case) creates jobs, by developing policies within a state that promote business enterprise, free market, ect.
That is exactly a governing body's responsibility to provide the People with jobs and business opportunities.
The Constitution and the Law draw the lines, borders, ect. for that governing body's acceptable (by and for the People) solutions.

Generally, I understand your points and I agreee that some changes need to be made and/or undertaken, in order the Constitution and the Law to be respected by all the state's inhabitants.
Since you can not replace Mankind, you need to use political means to achieve your goals.

Example :
A senator (elected by the People within your community) does not present your community's stance in the U.S. Senate.
Why do not you demand that senator's removal ?
Because, your community has not created any "mechanism" to apply such one, remove that senator, choose a new one who represents your community interests.

I say:
The mechanism is in place, but people have their priorities, and place in society skewed by media misinformation and indoctrination. The people are surely at fault to a degree, but it is the bulk of this fault that lies on the media, and their lack of investigative reporting and honesty in their jobs of INFORMING the people.

The most educated mind, can not make a decision in confidence, knowing he is not being provided the full extent of information. The problem is, most people don't know, or even worse, DONT BELIEVE, they are not getting all the CRITICAL information.

Who is that "guilty" party, then :
- a governing body
or
- the People
???

I say:
All, to a degree, but money is the trail that shows the creators of the corruption. The people have not been being paid off en masse, to do as they are. The government, the media, and the corporate ties that bind prove who is to blame.

[Rainbow]

Unfortunately, the governmet has moved beyond honoring the law, or telling the truth, and they already appoint the Judges that would try them if they ever were to go in front of a court of law.

In other words, you admit new "mechanisms" need to be created, in order to re-shape a state to its originally established fundaments for the Constitution and the Law, since such "mechanisms" (if into effect) do not bring required effects.

[Milton Bradley]

In other words, you admit new "mechanisms" need to be created, in order to re-shape a state to its originally established fundaments for the Constitution and the Law, since such "mechanisms" (if into effect) do not bring required effects.

I agree it would be desirable, but I don't think its absolutely necesarry.


The simple fact is that government has been hijacked, by liars, and theives. Kleptocrats is the correct term I believe.


What is necesarry is a popular revolt.

[Rainbow]

#1
I would like to know what would give you that idea? That is a vague blanketing statement. Yes, I know that technology exists, and has made certain things difficult, but nothing has become so difficult that we can not stay within the bounds of the Constitution and still acheive the desired effect.

#2
You were saying before, idealism doesn't provide jobs, yada yada yada, and I ANSWERED that clearly, by saying a FREE MARKET provides jobs, and small business provided jobs, and entrepreneurial spirit is what provides jobs, food, and provides the society the chance to flourish.
Go to the site I list below, and take a look at population numbers and how well this society flourished as population influxed from all over the world. This site has census numbers dating from 1790 to present.

#3
"I want to restore Constitutional Limitations to the United States Federal Government once again, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS." Do not read more into it, do not try to re-word it, as it is plain and simple to understand as it is written. A part of that would be to restore States Rights also, so yes, partially true.

#4
I am not making an offer, and you are generalizing again. You are ignoring the points I have made about a misinformed populace. Do you not see the difficulty in realizing a problem, when at every step the problem is mis-represented, mis-reported, mis-given?
People, mankind, will always be the same in the sense that they are INTELLIGENT people, and if PROVIDED or ALLOWED to research the information they need to make an INTELLIGENT decision, they usually prevail. I want to make it so that people, are informed, understand their rights, as well as the government limitations to interfere in those rights, and once again RE-ALIGN the federal government with the United States constitution. There have been changes concerning the laws of this society that have not been challenged, by the society itself due to mis-representation, or complete ignorance of the changes effects due to lack of representation.

#5
Those mechanisms are in place already, and it is called the LAW under the Constitution.
There is no such mechanism as you speak of that could be created in a way to isolate from corruption, if it is part of the mechanism itself.

#6
If you are part of the mechanism, you are able to be corrupted.

#7
Anyone that believes a piece of paper protects them from terror is a fool and an imbecile. To have absolute protection in a free or UNFREE society is impossible, as anytime people intermingle in numbers greater than 1, there is a chance for death if the attacker is willing to die for his cause. So let me guess, if this paper had been signed before 9/11, would an invisible barrier have surrounded the Towers to "protect those people from terror related activity"?? People that believe in things like this DESERVE NO SECURITY, OR LIBERTY!!!!

#8
Form large groups to protest outside the White House, Congress, and their representatives doors, DEMANDING ACTION TO REPEAL, or pay the price.
That price is a formal petititon for Redress of Grievance, or Revolt if the Redress is not addressed.

#9
The mechanism is in place, but people have their priorities, and place in society skewed by media misinformation and indoctrination. The people are surely at fault to a degree, but it is the bulk of this fault that lies on the media, and their lack of investigative reporting and honesty in their jobs of INFORMING the people.

The most educated mind, can not make a decision in confidence, knowing he is not being provided the full extent of information. The problem is, most people don't know, or even worse, DONT BELIEVE, they are not getting all the CRITICAL information

#1
That is not an idea, but reality.
Submit that alleged technology (if one in its existance), that give the People a chance to use it in order to control a governing body - always, please. Honestly, I am curious what could that be :-)))

#2
You are right. Times have changed.
The science and technology have made a progress, so the economy, market, ect. along with all the regulations. No more a real "free market", then.
The other side (read : other states around the world) wants to trade its own products and bring it on American market as well.
Look at the world map, and figure how many countries made a progress in science and technology, and what U.S. can offer to those states today. There is no mercy, but a "war" over marketting fields all over the world, while a competition stick to "no-rule" policy.
A sort of gigantic "Wall Street" that looms all over the planet Earth.

#3
Good luck.
Instead of creating "mechanisms" that eventually solve the problems, you want to "mend the fences".
(I am speechless).

#4
Assuming that all the People are well educated, are you suggesting that Mankind is "corruption-free" species ?
That is exactly the Constitution and the Law that allow the People to become even more corrupted, than it took place in the past.
Today, the People (all of Us) use the Constitution and the Law to prevent others from reaching the facts, regardless of a level, field, range, ect. it may concern and/or subjects it carries, influences, ect.

#5
Dreaming.
There are no "mechanisms" into effect. That is your business to create and/or develope such ones. If there is no a "mechanism" needed to protect the People, then one needs to create, establsih and/or develope such one on its own. No one is going to bring it on a "golden plate". It requires some better-than-decent-and-open minds.

#6
Am I correct you take me as : an "enemy" or a "foe" ?
If "yes", then you make me laugh :-)))

#7
Yes, there are plenty of imbeciles around the world, but I am neither a teacher nor a doctor :-)))

"Patriot Act" - or any "bill" of anything - would not protect all the People from terrorist attacks. It gives a governing body a power to access all the available informations on all the People, while some may attempt to execute terrorist acts.
It is a double-edge "mechanism". Why not to use the other edge to protect the People, then ? That is exactly the People who should create and/or develope "mechanisms" to prevent a governing body from any potential abuse of that power, that may take place.
What the People have done so far, in that matter ? Not much, if anything.

#8
Such actions are good for kids, and do not result in any significant political changes.

#9
Dreaming (again).
Post the "mechanism" that has a power to remove a Senator from his/her post, please.
THAT "mechanism" would become the core (!) for controlling a governing body (!).
No need for enforcing the Constitution and the Law. Those who elected would do it for you - and for "free" :-)))

It seems to me, that some poeple (you are affiliated with) have no clue on politics.