SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 14, 7:30*pm, wrote:
- According to
-*http://www.akc.org/breeds/australian_cattle_dog
- my little couch buddy doggy is extremely intelligent.
- How/why she puts up with me, I just don't know.
- Maybe she takes pity on me?
- http://www.cattledog.comhttp://www.acdca.org
- WOOF WOOF.
- cuhulin

Often our little Animal Friends have
a far Bigger Heart then we do , , ,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwXoNnffVKc

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 14, 7:32*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:53*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

As long as you have a Republic, people will hand over the reigns to
the representatives to do the hard work. *In exchange for having
elected people to sit down and work out the hard and complex details
of difficult legislation, power will be concentrated and expanded in
places that you'd rather not see it. *Such is the nature of a
republic. *People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

The only way to avoid this and maintain something other than a
dictatorship, and it is a severely double-edged sword, is through
direct Democracy. *With that, the people make ALL the rules and bypass
the middleman of the republic. *But, beware - there is nothing more
disjointed and cumbersome and damned downright confusing than a set of
laws created by The People.

My guess is that both of these ideas work better on a very small scale
- like in a town or a county. *Once you get to the Statewide level,
things start breaking down again, and at the national level - well,
you see what we have.

- You have to choose your poison,
- or go live in Antarctica.

That's a Chilling Thought . . .

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 14, 9:18*pm, wrote:
On Sep 14, 10:32*pm, bpnjensen wrote:



On Sep 14, 3:53*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

As long as you have a Republic, people will hand over the reigns to
the representatives to do the hard work. *In exchange for having
elected people to sit down and work out the hard and complex details
of difficult legislation, power will be concentrated and expanded in
places that you'd rather not see it. *Such is the nature of a
republic. *People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

The only way to avoid this and maintain something other than a
dictatorship, and it is a severely double-edged sword, is through
direct Democracy. *With that, the people make ALL the rules and bypass
the middleman of the republic. *But, beware - there is nothing more
disjointed and cumbersome and damned downright confusing than a set of
laws created by The People.

My guess is that both of these ideas work better on a very small scale
- like in a town or a county. *Once you get to the Statewide level,
things start breaking down again, and at the national level - well,
you see what we have.

You have to choose your poison, or go live in Antarctica.

- It work very well in the ancient Greek city-states.
- Look what had happened since they have joined
- the Common Market and EU !

A lot of time and history has transpired between
the 'Ancient Greek City-States' of many Centuries
ago and what is now called "Modern Greece" today . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_modern_Greece

(OT) : The US Federal Government is simply the 'Limited Agent' of "WeThe People"
 

On Sep 14, 4:05*pm, dave wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:
We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. Meanings change over
time.

Actually, what you interpret as "vague" was meant to me, and is a loud
and dramatic statement, it means, "VERY LIMITED GOVERNMENT!"

Regards,
JS

It's a little late for that.

- Where exactly does it say"very limited government"?

'Special Dave',

All Un-Alienable Rights That Are Not Vested
in 'We The People'
* and clearly defined as the Duties of the Federal
Government {Federation}
* are Reserved To The Individual {United} States . . .

-ergo- Limited Role* of the US Federal Government [.]

* Duties and Responsibilities {Functions}

- If the government is the people

-special-dave- 'We The People' -are- "We The People"

- why would they want to limit the people?

The US Federal Government is simply the
'limited' agent of "We The People"
-since- "We The People" reside in the
Individual States except for 'DC'
-and- "We The People" are 1st and foremost
are Citizens of those Individual States
-and- in-addition Citizen of the Federation
of those States 'collectively' The USA.

The 'Primary Agent' of "We The People" are
the 'Individual States' that we reside in . . .
NOT The US Federal Government which was
collectively formed by the 'Individual States'
as the 'Primary Agent' of "We The People" as
a Collective Umbrella Organization for National
Defense, International Diplomacy and Global
Commerce.

A Citizen of the "California Republic" [USA] ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Republic

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

John Smith wrote:
On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

More vagueness. I think you mean the states. The amendment before the
one you attempted to quote says we have other rights, besides those
listed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

And "the people" manifests in our form of government as the House of
Representatives.

I'll make a deal with you. If you agree to disband the military, except
for a National Guard, I'll give up the Department of Education.

SPECIAL : US Constitution Intentionally Vague About Spanking. . . {Tough Love}
 

RHF wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:30 pm, wrote:


- He says there's no violence in schools,
- but also brags that parents hit their children,
- another form of violence.

'Special Dave' was it done in rage and anger . . .
or out of love and goodness ?


It is wrong to strike another, except when in fear of immediate threat
to life and limb.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

Day Brown wrote:


Back before agribusiness replaced family farms, it was like this all
over rural America. The land here is too steep for the large contiguous
tracts agribusiness likes.

I sold my farm back in 1986.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 14, 10:18*pm, wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:11*am, bpnjensen wrote:





On Sep 14, 9:18*pm, wrote:

On Sep 14, 10:32*pm, bpnjensen wrote:

On Sep 14, 3:53*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

As long as you have a Republic, people will hand over the reigns to
the representatives to do the hard work. *In exchange for having
elected people to sit down and work out the hard and complex details
of difficult legislation, power will be concentrated and expanded in
places that you'd rather not see it. *Such is the nature of a
republic. *People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

The only way to avoid this and maintain something other than a
dictatorship, and it is a severely double-edged sword, is through
direct Democracy. *With that, the people make ALL the rules and bypass
the middleman of the republic. *But, beware - there is nothing more
disjointed and cumbersome and damned downright confusing than a set of
laws created by The People.

My guess is that both of these ideas work better on a very small scale
- like in a town or a county. *Once you get to the Statewide level,
things start breaking down again, and at the national level - well,
you see what we have.

You have to choose your poison, or go live in Antarctica.

It work very well in the ancient Greek city-states. Look what had
happened since they have joined the Common Market and EU !

Yes - they were much smaller than 2010 USA. *A lot of history
transpired between the Fall of Greece I and the Fall of Greece II !!!

Modern Greece is, I am afraid, in a position similar to California.
My theory - The European Union, of which they are now a part, holds
the keys to the treasury and the money machine, much like the US
Treasury. *The larger conglomeration can print money if it needs to
pay off its debts (albeit at an inflated rate), while the individual
nation-state cannot do this (as Greece used to be able to do). *Nether
Greece nor California can print its own $$$ like the larger system, so
they are in economic hot water.

Bruce Jense4n- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That sounds like the 'Big Brother' is not a fiction at all...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

....but in the US it's been this way since dirt. Each individual state
is it's own "nation" so to speak, with its own government and issues
to address, but the U.S. is Union of many states, is a supreme entity
with an overarching legal framework (the Constitution) and is the one
that prints the common currency. We here in the U.S. (especially
conservatives, generally) complain that we don't want to be like, or
be part of, the European Union, deeming it socialist and so forth -
but in reality, the EU is based loosely on what the U.S. already
is...a larger framework for the common good of all the member states.

California could, I suppose, print its own "greenbacks" to start to
pay off its debts - I am not an economist per se, so I do not know
what advantage that would gain us - but I doubt if it would work very
well, as currency is supposed to be based on *something*, either gold
or silver or other valuable commodity, which we do not have in
abundance just now. Such is the case now with Greece - its drachmas
are no longer much good by themselves.

Bruce

SPECIAL : US Constitution Intentionally Vague About Spanking . .. {Tough Love}
 

On Sep 15, 10:04*am, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:47*am, Grendel wrote:





On Sep 15, 8:28*am, dave wrote:

RHF wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:30 pm, *wrote:

- He says there's no violence *in schools,
- but also brags that parents hit their children,
- another form of violence.

'Special Dave' was it done in rage and anger . . .
or out of love and goodness ?

It is wrong to strike another, except when in fear of immediate threat
to life and limb.

Well, I have to say, that can be ranked as the most idiotic,
simplistic, ignorant and outright bull**** statement made on the
internet today.

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

Your rationale is noted.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rationale? The ignorance and bull**** factor of that statement is
self explanatory to anyone with a functioning brain.

But as both of you seem to lack that functioning brain, I will gladly
explain just a little of the rationale as to why the statement is
bull****.

First:
For the statement to be even close to accurate, it would have to be
morally reprehensible to spank a child, and it is far from it. You
may not agree with it, but your narrow viewpoint does not dictate the
morals for everyone. (and before you ask, I have found the need to
spank my children.)

Second:
The following activities that involve physical contact would have to
be banned on moral grounds, also:
-Football
-Rugby
-Lacrosse
-Water polo
-Wrestling
-Martial Arts
-Taekwondo,
-Jujutsu,
-Karate
-Ice hockey,
-Boxing of all kinds,
-Consensual S&M sex.
-Friendly wrestlling matches
---Just to name a few

Third:
The following activities that MIGHT RESULT in physical contact would
have to be banned on moral grounds:
-Baseball
-Basketball
-Field hockey
-Netball
-Squash
-Golf
-Jogging
-Children playing (would have to ban playgrounds also...dangerous
places)
-Any sex, period (which you obviously are not familiar with).
-Walking down the street.
-Going outside your house at any time.
---Just to name a very few.

Might as well outlaw that entire 'Right to Assemble', too, as their's
always the possibility you might accidentally bump into someone.

Idiots.

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

"I'm not cynical, just experienced."

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

RHF wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:32 am, wrote:
wrote:

- - It work very well in the ancient Greek city-states. Look what had
- - happened since they have joined the Common Market and EU !

- Libertarian Socialists like City States.
- It is the biggest form of government we tolerate.

.
No State : Are You Really a Libertarian-Anarchist ?
http://www.nostate.com/2917/are-you-...riananarchist/
http://www.nostate.com/about/


All the same. Left Libertarian. Anarchist Socialist. Whatever.

SPECIAL : US Constitution Intentionally Vague About Spanking . .. {Tough Love}
 

On Sep 15, 8:35*am, Grendel wrote:

First:
For the statement to be even close to accurate, it would have to be
morally reprehensible to spank a child, and it is far from it. *You
may not agree with it, but your narrow viewpoint does not dictate the
morals for everyone. (and before you ask, I have found the need to
spank my children.)

Then you are unethical, and YES I can make that statement, which is
different from dictating it (*Learn* the difference if learning is
within your ability). Tough **** if you don't like it, you brutal
*******.

Second:
The following activities that involve physical contact would have to
be banned on moral grounds, also:
-Football
-Rugby
-Lacrosse
-Water polo
-Wrestling
-Martial Arts
-Taekwondo,
-Jujutsu,
-Karate
-Ice hockey,
-Boxing of all kinds,
-Consensual S&M sex.
-Friendly wrestlling matches
---Just to name a few

Lousy analogy... all of these things are VOLUNTARY, unlike your
child's sad acceptance of his terrible fate at the hand of a person
who *supposedly* loves him. Your lack of not-so-subtle discernment is
noted. Do you bash your wife around that too? Is that yourway of
showing how much you love her?

Third:
The following activities that MIGHT RESULT in physical contact would
have to be banned on moral grounds:
-Baseball
-Basketball
-Field hockey
-Netball
-Squash
-Golf
-Jogging
-Children playing (would have to ban playgrounds also...dangerous
places)
-Any sex, period (which you obviously are not familiar with).
-Walking down the street.
-Going outside your house at any time.
---Just to name a very few.

Again, ALL voluntary. Just how stupid are you?

Might as well outlaw that entire 'Right to Assemble', too, as their's
always the possibility you might accidentally bump into someone.

Idiots.

My God - what planet are your from? You compare voluntarily playing a
game for fun to getting abused by your parents, and you have the balls
to call someone else an idiot? I guess soem coward who is not using
his real name is willing to say anything...

Bruce Jensen

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

"I'm not cynical, just brutal and stupid."

SPECIAL : US Constitution Intentionally Vague About Spanking . .. {Tough Love}
 

On Sep 15, 6:53*am, RHF wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:28*am, dave wrote: RHF wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:30 pm, *wrote:

- He says there's no violence *in schools,
- but also brags that parents hit their children,
- another form of violence.

- - 'Special Dave' was it done in rage and anger . . .
- - or out of love and goodness ?

- It is wrong to strike another,
- except when in fear of immediate threat
- to life and limb.

So... 'Special Dave',
All "Contact" Sports Should Be Banned !
*.

Contact sports are voluntary. The player knows what he/she is in
for. Big difference.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On 09/14/2010 03:30 PM, dave wrote:
f. barnes wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:18 pm, Day wrote:



Then look at the school reports
athttp://normessasweb.uark.edu/schoolperformance/School/School.php
REPEATEDLY, you see ZERO rates of violence. Drop out rates in the single
digits, graduation rates near or over 90%, 95% attendance.

And the liberals call us ignorant, uneducated, rednecks, and they
won't believe a word you've posted.

I totally believe him. Sounds like a delightful place.

He says there's no violence in schools, but also brags that parents hit
their children, another form of violence.
Both primate field studies and neurological lab work reveal that pain
will alter the hormone profile. You can do the same with drugs, but I
dunno of any longitudinal study on the ultimate effect of people who
grew up on Ritalin or whatever.

But history, all the way back to the Roman Stoics, is full of examples
of pain being properly applied to, as we now know, lower the
testosterone level and reduce the impulsivity caused by adrenalin, and
make the boy pay attention. They didnt have ADD problems then, and I
dont see it now among the farm boys who know where the woodshed is.

Robt Kaplan, in his study of the military, "Imperial Grunts" reports
that half the Green Berets grew up on family farms. You'd think the
Brass would notice, but they are too busy with deals for the military
industrial complex.

The fundamental diff I see that is not picked up on is that pain that is
inflicted without self control is abuse, but with it, is a time tested
method of adjusting attitudes. Course, you can adjust attitudes with
meth also.

As for the snide remark about getting a D in gym, it shows ignorance of
what modern farm life is like now. You dont stay in the family business
by being that stupid. Agribusiness and govt policy has driven all but
the most diligent and intelligent family farms out of business. That has
something to do with why these hill towns have grades that are 1/2 year
ahead of the national average.

--
When the Goddess invented sex, She was beside Herself.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On 09/15/2010 08:30 AM, dave wrote:
Day Brown wrote:


Back before agribusiness replaced family farms, it was like this all
over rural America. The land here is too steep for the large contiguous
tracts agribusiness likes.

I sold my farm back in 1986.
I read the average farmer is now 61 years old. Recently, I noted an old
man with two young helpers he was apparently teaching how to string
fence. Afterwards, I noticed its a real professional job.

But sometimes ponder the fact that both young helpers were women. Women
run the forklifts and log skidders at the saw mill. I see them behind
the parts counter, and they know where the hydraulic fluid is, or what a
combination wrench looks like.

--
When the Goddess invented sex, She was beside Herself.

SPECIAL : US Constitution Intentionally Vague About Spanking. . . {Tough Love}
 

On 09/15/2010 12:42 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 15, 8:35 am, wrote:

First:
For the statement to be even close to accurate, it would have to be
morally reprehensible to spank a child, and it is far from it. You
may not agree with it, but your narrow viewpoint does not dictate the
morals for everyone. (and before you ask, I have found the need to
spank my children.)

Then you are unethical, and YES I can make that statement, which is
different from dictating it (*Learn* the difference if learning is
within your ability). Tough **** if you don't like it, you brutal
*******.
Yes you can make the statement, but you dont have any science to back it
up. Nor history. Epictetus:"The boy who learned to control slaves (and
today they are electronic), does not learn to control himself."

I've spanked a toddler to keep him from going in the street and getting
run over. At this age, reasoning with him is not effective.

In the hill town schools, if a boy is disruptive, the teacher calls the
office and enough other people arrive to take him in hand, literally
picking him up. This is primate instinctive behavior at work. Soon as
the boy is up off his feet, he realizes there is power greater than his
will to try to dominate and control others.

The spanking itself is merely the apex of a psychological process which
only takes a few seconds. Without it, such bullies would be physically
abusing smaller kids. Totally avoiding what you say is abuse is not
possible. Controlling it is, and while you may use drugs, I am very
concerned because there are no long term studies of the effect.

You got any kids we can try drugs out on?

Its instructive that you resort to ad hominem. The science is that
properly administered pain adjusts hormone levels, and with that the
behavior which risks abuse of other kids stops. Now, if you have any
other research besides your anal orifice, I'd be glad to see it.

--
When the Goddess invented sex, She was beside Herself.

SPECIAL : US Constitution Intentionally Vague About Spanking . .. {Tough Love}
 

On Sep 15, 12:32*pm, Day Brown wrote:
On 09/15/2010 12:42 PM, bpnjensen wrote: On Sep 15, 8:35 am, *wrote:

First:
For the statement to be even close to accurate, it would have to be
morally reprehensible to spank a child, and it is far from it. *You
may not agree with it, but your narrow viewpoint does not dictate the
morals for everyone. (and before you ask, I have found the need to
spank my children.)

Then you are unethical, and YES I can make that statement, which is
different from dictating it (*Learn* the difference if learning is
within your ability). *Tough **** if you don't like it, you brutal
*******.

Yes you can make the statement, but you dont have any science to back it
up. Nor history. Epictetus:"The boy who learned to control slaves (and
today they are electronic), does not learn to control himself."

Science? Like basic compassion is scientific?

I've spanked a toddler to keep him from going in the street and getting
run over. At this age, reasoning with him is not effective.

How nice of you. You would have been better off to actually watch the
toddler to begin with. I see too many parents who let their kids out
of their restraint and then blame the kid. Same with pets. The
parents need the spanking for being reckless.

In the hill town schools, if a boy is disruptive, the teacher calls the
office and enough other people arrive to take him in hand, literally
picking him up. This is primate instinctive behavior at work. Soon as
the boy is up off his feet, he realizes there is power greater than his
will to try to dominate and control others.

As long as it isn't violent, I'm OK with it.

The spanking itself is merely the apex of a psychological process which
only takes a few seconds. Without it, such bullies would be physically
abusing smaller kids. Totally avoiding what you say is abuse is not
possible. Controlling it is, and while you may use drugs, I am very
concerned because there are no long term studies of the effect.

Parents create bullies...parents can stop them. If they do not, then
you expel the kid until the parents figure it out.

I would NEVER use drugs on kids and I have no idea why you insist on
this even more irresponsible alternative.

Where's YOUR science?

You got any kids we can try drugs out on?

Blah blah blah.

Its instructive that you resort to ad hominem.

I responded with EXACTLY the kind of ad-hominem that the prior poster
used.

The science is that properly administered pain adjusts hormone levels, and with that the behavior which risks abuse of other kids stops. Now, if you have any
other research besides your anal orifice, I'd be glad to see it.

Link, please? Meanwhile -

My Dad swatted me a few times. It taught me that my Dad had a limited
imagination and a strong hand. To this day, I do not believe I did
anything to earn those swats, and I have never used corporal
punishment on my child, who:

~ Does not run in the street
~ Does not bully others
~ Neither needs nor used drugs, legal or otherwise
~ Does good work in school
~ Works very well in a team or independently
~ Is basically respectful to others
~ Knows he can trust me
~ Has no black and blue marks like I did.

It was never, ever, necessary. There are other ways besides violence.

Bruce Jensen

SPECIAL : US Constitution Intentionally Vague About Spanking . .. {Tough Love}
 

On Sep 15, 12:42*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 15, 8:35*am, Grendel wrote:

First:
For the statement to be even close to accurate, it would have to be
morally reprehensible to spank a child, and it is far from it. *You
may not agree with it, but your narrow viewpoint does not dictate the
morals for everyone. (and before you ask, I have found the need to
spank my children.)

Then you are unethical,

That is not for you to say. (and I left out the work 'not', as I have
never spanked my children.)

and YES I can make that statement, which is
different from dictating it (*Learn* the difference if learning is
within your ability). *

You can make any statement you like, that does not make it resemble
anything near to reality.

Tough **** if you don't like it, you brutal
*******.

Brutal? Just to idiots on the usenet. *******? Not likely...

Second:
The following activities that involve physical contact would have to
be banned on moral grounds, also:
-Football
-Rugby
-Lacrosse
-Water polo
-Wrestling
-Martial Arts
-Taekwondo,
-Jujutsu,
-Karate
-Ice hockey,
-Boxing of all kinds,
-Consensual S&M sex.
-Friendly wrestlling matches
---Just to name a few

Lousy analogy... all of these things are VOLUNTARY,

Ah, but YOU DID NOT SPECIFY that in your original statement. Let me
remind you that your statement was "It is wrong to strike another,
except when in fear of immediate threat to life and limb." You didn't
leave any room for any 'voluntary' or 'incindentals' in it.

Thus, making it a bull**** statement.

unlike your
child's sad acceptance of his terrible fate at the hand of a person
who *supposedly* loves him. *Your lack of not-so-subtle discernment is
noted. *Do you bash your wife around that too? *Is that yourway of
showing how much you love her?

I dont' bash anyone (except for occasionally bashing some idiot over
the head with his own 'logic'). My wife's first marriage was abusive,
so she is understandably parnoid about such. She would have never
married me if I had been abusive in any form (rightly so). Any man
who hits his wife in anger is a low-life who should be put to death.
The same with as with any parent to hits a child in anger or abuses
them in any way.

A spanking to get a child's attention is not abuse.

Third:
The following activities that MIGHT RESULT in physical contact would
have to be banned on moral grounds:
-Baseball
-Basketball
-Field hockey
-Netball
-Squash
-Golf
-Jogging
-Children playing (would have to ban playgrounds also...dangerous
places)
-Any sex, period (which you obviously are not familiar with).
-Walking down the street.
-Going outside your house at any time.
---Just to name a very few.

Again, ALL voluntary. *Just how stupid are you?

Again, you did not have any such qualifications in your original
statement. Go back and read what you wrote. You did not state that
itis wrong to strike another, expecp when in fear of immediate life
and limb OR if they are okay with it OR can reasonably see the
possibility. You stated that it is wrong to strike another, except
when in fear of immediate threat to life and limb. Well, I'm sure that
some golfer does not think that getting beaned with a club when he
gets too close to a swing as 'being in fear of immediate threat to
life and limb', so using your 'logic' it should be banned.

Might as well outlaw that entire 'Right to Assemble', too, as their's
always the possibility you might accidentally bump into someone.

Idiots.

My God - what planet are your from? *You compare voluntarily playing a
game for fun to getting abused by your parents,

We're not talking about 'getting abused by your parents'. We're
talking about spanking, or corporal punishment, if you will. I
suggest you look up the definition of 'corporal punishment' before you
start throwing around words such as 'abuse' (and no, they are not
synonymous).

I'm sure you find some parent who allowed his or her child to become
horribly burned by tipping over a boiling pot of water morally
superior that the parent who smacked the childs hand and said "NO"
when he/she reached for the pot. That'll learn the little *******.

and you have the balls
to call someone else an idiot? *

Now, don't sell yourself short. You're not just "someone". You're
speical. You're a TOTAL idiot.

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

"I'm not cynical, just experienced."

SPECIAL : US Constitution Intentionally Vague About Spanking. . . {Tough Love}
 

On 09/15/2010 11:06 AM, dave wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:28 am, wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:30 pm, wrote:

- He says there's no violence in schools,
- but also brags that parents hit their children,
- another form of violence.

- - 'Special Dave' was it done in rage and anger . . .
- - or out of love and goodness ?

- It is wrong to strike another,
- except when in fear of immediate threat
- to life and limb.

So... 'Special Dave',
All "Contact" Sports Should Be Banned !
.

Only the one's where you intentionally strike people.
Contact sports offer the EXCUSE for violence. Bull riding exists cause
people hope to watch a man die. Bulls, quite literally, get away with
murder. Course, there's those who are repelled by the whole idea of
violence. With some kids, taking "time out" or making them stand in the
corner actually works. We expect adults to have good judgment and not
rely on politically correct thinking.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0605123237.htm
discusses DNA markers. Which we know are more common in some gene pools
and we see higher levels of violence in them. We also know there is a
generally higher level of testosterone, which increases at an earlier
age, higher adrenalin, and lower seratonin and dopamine.

The latter are statistically linked to substance abuse. Alcohol is
metabolized differently in those who become alcoholics. We need to warn
the kids with these DNA markers, and warn women about the men who have
behavior that is indicative of the problem.

These problems are handed down on the Y chromosome, and are seen in all
races, altho some moreso than others. The Nordic seem to have the lowest
rates which is why they can run socialism so well.
--
When the Goddess invented sex, She was beside Herself.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 14, 4:30*pm, dave wrote:
f. barnes wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:18 pm, Day *wrote:

Then look at the school reports athttp://normessasweb.uark.edu/schoolperformance/School/School.php
REPEATEDLY, you see ZERO rates of violence. Drop out rates in the single
digits, graduation rates near or over 90%, 95% attendance.

And the liberals call us ignorant, uneducated, rednecks, and they
won't believe a word you've posted.

I totally believe him. Sounds like a delightful place.

He says there's no violence *in schools, but also brags that parents
hit their children, another form of violence.

Spare the rod and spoil the child.

On average...Who would know better how to raise your kids?
The parents of the kids... or some 'family services' cops dragging
your kids away at the behest of some naturalized mexican case worker?

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 15, 1:20*pm, lorad wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:30*pm, dave wrote:

f. barnes wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:18 pm, Day *wrote:

Then look at the school reports athttp://normessasweb.uark.edu/schoolperformance/School/School.php
REPEATEDLY, you see ZERO rates of violence. Drop out rates in the single
digits, graduation rates near or over 90%, 95% attendance.

And the liberals call us ignorant, uneducated, rednecks, and they
won't believe a word you've posted.

I totally believe him. Sounds like a delightful place.

He says there's no violence *in schools, but also brags that parents
hit their children, another form of violence.

Spare the rod and spoil the child.

On average...Who would know better how to raise your kids?
The parents of the kids... or some 'family services' cops dragging
your kids away at the behest of some naturalized mexican case worker?

I *personally* know many parents who have no clue whatsoever how to
raise kids. The kids are hellions and the parents are oblivious to
the world. Often on illicit drugs or just plain stupid pills, they
just don't give a damn. They should be sterilized.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

Why is NASA going to use Russian made Rockets to blast into outer Space?
That is vague, vague to me anyway.
cuhulin

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

most important statement in the entire document.

Coupled with the Tenth Amendment, _that's_ limited government.



With every good wish,



Kevin.
The Supreme Court has found the Tenth Amendment to be meaningless. The
HOR is the "peoples' house". If it sucks, it's because the people suck.

SPECIAL : US Constitution Intentionally Vague About Spanking. . . {Tough Love}
 

Grendel wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:04 am, wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:47 am, wrote:





On Sep 15, 8:28 am, wrote:

RHF wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:30 pm, wrote:

- He says there's no violence in schools,
- but also brags that parents hit their children,
- another form of violence.

'Special Dave' was it done in rage and anger . . .
or out of love and goodness ?

It is wrong to strike another, except when in fear of immediate threat
to life and limb.

Well, I have to say, that can be ranked as the most idiotic,
simplistic, ignorant and outright bull**** statement made on the
internet today.

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

Your rationale is noted.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rationale? The ignorance and bull**** factor of that statement is
self explanatory to anyone with a functioning brain.

But as both of you seem to lack that functioning brain, I will gladly
explain just a little of the rationale as to why the statement is
bull****.

First:
For the statement to be even close to accurate, it would have to be
morally reprehensible to spank a child, and it is far from it. You
may not agree with it, but your narrow viewpoint does not dictate the
morals for everyone. (and before you ask, I have found the need to
spank my children.)

Second:
The following activities that involve physical contact would have to
be banned on moral grounds, also:

-Martial Arts
-Taekwondo,
-Jujutsu,
-Karate

-Boxing of all kinds,

I can live with that. It is wrong to use violence to teach.

SPECIAL : US Constitution Intentionally Vague About Spanking. . . {Tough Love}
 

Day Brown wrote:


The spanking itself is merely the apex of a psychological process which
only takes a few seconds. Without it, such bullies would be physically
abusing smaller kids. Totally avoiding what you say is abuse is not
possible. Controlling it is, and while you may use drugs, I am very
concerned because there are no long term studies of the effect.



That is very twisted. You better stay vin the 19th century. I pity your
children

BTW: the guy with the board is the bully.

I'll bet there's a ****load of wife-swapping where you live. That's
been my experience in these Mayberry Meccas.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

lorad wrote:


On average...Who would know better how to raise your kids?
The parents of the kids... or some 'family services' cops dragging
your kids away at the behest of some naturalized mexican case worker?


The schools raise the kids if their lucky. The parents more often than
not just pass on the negative stuff.

SPECIAL: Baikonor Kosmodrome
 

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:35:48 -0800, dave wrote:

Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

most important statement in the entire document.

Coupled with the Tenth Amendment, _that's_ limited government.



With every good wish,



Kevin.
The Supreme Court has found the Tenth Amendment to be meaningless. The
HOR is the "peoples' house". If it sucks, it's because the people suck.

teabaggers hate the 1st, 5th 7th 10th and 14th amendments and are working
to change them. can't wait till they fix the second amendment too
rumor has it they will insert "only white protestant " and "rich" into it
several times. cheaney wants to have haliburton manage it for the
government

SPECIAL: Baikonor Kosmodrome
 

On Sep 15, 7:47*pm, dave wrote:
wrote:
Why is NASA going to use Russian made Rockets to blast into outer Space?
That is vague, vague to me anyway.
cuhulin

Russian rockets pollute like crazy. *They should not get EPA waivers.

Baikonur is and always was in Kazakhstan. Doubt if any environmental
laws are in effect over the after all these space and nuclear (!)
testing (the first was above ground and literally killed civilians)
going all the way back to late 40's ...

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 15, 8:03*am, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:47*am, RHF wrote:



On Sep 14, 10:11*pm, bpnjensen wrote:

On Sep 14, 9:18*pm, wrote:

On Sep 14, 10:32*pm, bpnjensen wrote:

On Sep 14, 3:53*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ....

Regards,
JS

As long as you have a Republic, people will hand over the reigns to
the representatives to do the hard work. *In exchange for having
elected people to sit down and work out the hard and complex details
of difficult legislation, power will be concentrated and expanded in
places that you'd rather not see it. *Such is the nature of a
republic. *People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

The only way to avoid this and maintain something other than a
dictatorship, and it is a severely double-edged sword, is through
direct Democracy. *With that, the people make ALL the rules and bypass
the middleman of the republic. *But, beware - there is nothing more
disjointed and cumbersome and damned downright confusing than a set of
laws created by The People.

My guess is that both of these ideas work better on a very small scale
- like in a town or a county. *Once you get to the Statewide level,
things start breaking down again, and at the national level - well,
you see what we have.

You have to choose your poison, or go live in Antarctica.

It work very well in the ancient Greek city-states. Look what had
happened since they have joined the Common Market and EU !

Yes - they were much smaller than 2010 USA. *A lot of history
transpired between the Fall of Greece I and the Fall of Greece II !!!

- Modern Greece is, I am afraid, in a position similar to California.

Los Californianos* need to DEMAND that each and
every one of the California Elected US Senators and
US Congress persons Demand that California get
each and every Dollar Pay by Californians in US
Federal {IRS] Taxes Returned to California in
Federal Spending.http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...27faca882fb518...

* All the Citizens of the 'California Republic'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Republic
.
Prez-A-Duntz Obama - return to the Citizens of the
California Republic all the US Federal Tax Dollars :
Stop Stealing from California and driving up our
Unemployment and Bankrupting Californiahttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.liberalism/msg/c0167411ac...
*.
-wrt- The California State Economy :
A Casualty of the US Federal Government's
Tax and Spend Robbery of the Citizens of
the California Republic (State of California)http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...faa3aa477f59a3...
*.
*.

My theory - The European Union, of which they are now a part, holds
the keys to the treasury and the money machine, much like the US
Treasury. *The larger conglomeration can print money if it needs to
pay off its debts (albeit at an inflated rate), while the individual
nation-state cannot do this (as Greece used to be able to do). *Nether
Greece nor California can print its own $$$ like the larger system, so
they are in economic hot water.

Bruce Jense4n- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

- You're setting up an "us vs. them" paradigm in which it's California
- vs. the rest of the US,
- as though we are somehow separate and not intertwined with the rest
of
- the nation.
-
- You know this is not true.

That is right : 'not true -cause- I did not say anything
about an "Us-versus-Them" pair-of-dimes ;;-}}

In the Federation of States know as the USA :
Each of the States is an Equal Partner and
'Collectively those States are a 'Union'.

-*What is good or bad for other states and
- regions can have comparably
- good and bad effects on California, and vice-versa.

And . . . a $50B Yearly Ecomonic Rape of the
State of California for Decades is 'good' for the
State of California and 'The Union' of All States ?

- Of course, you probably know which states
- rely most heavily on public funding from the feds -
- IIRC, the State that largely complains the most
- about big-brother type government - Alaska -

Yes Alaska gets back $1.88 for each and every
$1.00 it sends to the US Federal Government.

- is alos the biggest sink for federal fuinds per capita.

Yes that is a 'per-capita' number so a state like
Alaska with a relatively small population can
'appear' to be getting a Big Wind Fall when the
Collective Dollar Total is actually smaller than
other States.

- If we, and other "wealthy" (and I use the term
- loosely) states demanded and got our money
- all back in some form, places like Alaska would
- become third-world countries fast.

California with Billions of US Dollars of Deficit
Spending per Year : IS NOT HEALTHY [.]

Don't Want Any of My US Tax Dollars to go to Any
Third World Countries when My Own State is Billions
of Dollars of Deficit Spending in the Red each Year.

-*That would not be good for the people there or
- the Republic.

The US Constitution calls for the the US Federal
Government to 'Promote The General Welfare' and
it is My-Opinion that 'Promoting The General Welfare'
Begins at Home First : In the State of California :
Once California is Economically Healthy again
{has Good General Welfare} then we can share with
the Rest of the "Union".

- As much as I dislike Alaskan politics, I want
- the people there to live satisfactory lives, and
- without the rest of us pitching in to help,

Would you be saying the same thing if it were
a 'southern' State ?

No Where in the US Constitution did I read that
All Member States Had to be Equal in all things.

- it likely won't happen.

Give the Alaska Lands over to the State of Alaska
and allow the Citizens of Alaska to Decide and
Manage their Natural Resources for themselves.

- As a Californian, I am happy to help out.

As a California : I say "California Heal Thy Self !"
Help California First -by- Helping California First
-by- Spending Our California US Federal Tax
Dollars right hear in the State of California to
Re-Build the Economy of California and General
Welfare of the Citizens of the State of California.

- Bruce Jensen

~ RHF - [Viva Los Californianos !]
http://www.loscalifornianos.org/

SPECIAL : US Constitution Intentionally Vague About Spanking. . . {Tough Love}
 

dave wrote:

I'll bet there's a ****load of wife-swapping where you live. That's
been my experience in these Mayberry Meccas.


That would explain the entire village raising the children. They never
know if they're looking after their own or not.

It's probably where the perverse Mormon Elders got their ideas for
their present day Harems. One of those scum has over 120 children from
welfare collecting tramps.





mike

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

lorad wrote:

Spare the rod and spoil the child.



Spare the rod and *have* no child.




mike

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

"Kevin Alfred Strom" wrote in message
...

The founders must have been aware that such a situation could evolve,
hence their repeated words "Congress shall make no law..." -- surely the
most important statement in the entire document.

CONgress has been making unconstitutional law for many decades. First
there's the flagrant violation of the Second Amendment by regulating WHO may
own or carry a gun. They've been doing that one for a very long time, and
they just keep slipping in more BS under the flag of protecting the public.
Protecting the public is the job of the police, not the CONgress passing
unconstitutional law.

Then there's due process, double jeopardy and ex-post-facto. They get around
that by saying the law is not punitive, but "regulative". And the SCOTUS
goes right along with it.

(OT) : "We The People" -are- The Underlying Productive Wealth thatSupports the Debt of the US Treasury
 

On Sep 15, 8:14*am, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 14, 10:18*pm, wrote:



On Sep 15, 1:11*am, bpnjensen wrote:

On Sep 14, 9:18*pm, wrote:

On Sep 14, 10:32*pm, bpnjensen wrote:

On Sep 14, 3:53*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ....

Regards,
JS

As long as you have a Republic, people will hand over the reigns to
the representatives to do the hard work. *In exchange for having
elected people to sit down and work out the hard and complex details
of difficult legislation, power will be concentrated and expanded in
places that you'd rather not see it. *Such is the nature of a
republic. *People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

The only way to avoid this and maintain something other than a
dictatorship, and it is a severely double-edged sword, is through
direct Democracy. *With that, the people make ALL the rules and bypass
the middleman of the republic. *But, beware - there is nothing more
disjointed and cumbersome and damned downright confusing than a set of
laws created by The People.

My guess is that both of these ideas work better on a very small scale
- like in a town or a county. *Once you get to the Statewide level,
things start breaking down again, and at the national level - well,
you see what we have.

You have to choose your poison, or go live in Antarctica.

It work very well in the ancient Greek city-states. Look what had
happened since they have joined the Common Market and EU !

Yes - they were much smaller than 2010 USA. *A lot of history
transpired between the Fall of Greece I and the Fall of Greece II !!!

Modern Greece is, I am afraid, in a position similar to California.
My theory - The European Union, of which they are now a part, holds
the keys to the treasury and the money machine, much like the US
Treasury. *The larger conglomeration can print money if it needs to
pay off its debts (albeit at an inflated rate), while the individual
nation-state cannot do this (as Greece used to be able to do). *Nether
Greece nor California can print its own $$$ like the larger system, so
they are in economic hot water.

Bruce Jense4n- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That sounds like the 'Big Brother' is not a fiction at all...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

...but in the US it's been this way since dirt. *Each individual state
is it's own "nation" so to speak, with its own government and issues
to address, but the U.S. is Union of many states, is a supreme entity
with an overarching legal framework (the Constitution) and is the one
that prints the common currency. *We here in the U.S. (especially
conservatives, generally) complain that we don't want to be like, or
be part of, the European Union, deeming it socialist and so forth -
but in reality, the EU is based loosely on what the U.S. already
is...a larger framework for the common good of all the member states.

- California could, I suppose,
- print its own "greenbacks"
- to start to pay off its debts -

Yes California 'Greenback' "CALI"s {not US Dollars}
that are printed-on 'Fine' California Grown Hemp Paper
based on California's Ability to Produce the Finest
Hemp Produces in the World. Underwritten by the
'Growing' California Economy : Productive Output in
Goods, Services and Primo 'Grass'. ;;-}}

Hello - Vote 'YES" on California Proposition 19
{The Marijuana Legalization Initiative of 2010}
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...ive_%282010%29
-wrt- Grow It ! -and- Tax It !
* Stop Sending Drug Money Overseas
* * Recycle It Right Here At Home in California
* Regulate It and TAX IT !
* * Control It and Put It To Productive Uses.

- I am not an economist per se, so I do not know
- what advantage that would gain us - but I doubt if it would work
very
- well,

-wrt- Bank of North Dakota*
http://www.banknd.nd.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_Dakota
California urgently needs an "International {State}
Bank of the California Republic"

- as currency is supposed to be based on *something*,
either gold or silver or other valuable commodity,

YES a "Some-Thing" which is a 'Valuable Commodity'

Are "WE" that 'Some-Thing' ?

- which we do not have in abundance just now.

What About the 'Value' of the Productive Ability and
Capacity of 310M USA'ians and 37M Californians ?
'We The People' -are- The Underlying Productive
Wealth that Supports the Debt of the US Treasury.

- Such is the case now with Greece - its drachmas
- are no longer much good by themselves.
- Bruce

What Is : The 'Value' of the Productive Ability and
Capacity of 11 M Greek Citzens* ? ? ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece
* Less than 1/3rd of California

BACK TO PRINTING MONEY AND IT VALUE :

When US President Lincoln -by-act-of-congress-
started Printing the "Union" {Greenback} Dollar :
the individual States were encouraged to get out
of the Currency 'printing' Business.
http://www.xat.org/xat/usury.html
http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/pres.htm
http://www.trosch.org/law/fed-paper-money.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note
http://www.paymasterusa.org/union_money.html
http://www.heritech.com/pridger/lincoln/lin-ken.htm
http://ecclesia.org/forum/uploads/bo...greenbackP.pdf

The US Dollar is NOT {presently} based on Gold or Silver
{Reserves} but on the US Economy's Productive Output
and Income {Revenue} that that produces.

The US Dollar is {presently} based on the US Economy :
The Hardworking Citizens of the USA's 'productive ability'
to Make and Do "Things" {Goods and Services} that can
be Exchanged {Bought and Sold or 'Bartered'} in/on the
USA Market and in/on International Markets. -er-go-

* A Healthy Strong US Economy is a 'Good' Valued
US Dollar in the National and World Marketplace.
-aka- A Worthy Debt with Proven Ability To Pay
the Interest on US Treasury Notes.

* A Sick Weak US Economy is a 'Bad' No-Value
US Dollar in the National and World Marketplace.
-aka- A Lousy Debt with "No" Ability To Pay the
Interest on US Treasury Notes.

(OT) : Now Please Go "Spank" Yourself !
 

On Sep 15, 10:42*am, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 15, 8:35*am, Grendel wrote:

First:
- - For the statement to be even close to accurate,
- - it would have to be morally reprehensible to
- - spank a child,
- - and it is far from it. *

. You
may not agree with it, but your narrow viewpoint does not dictate the
morals for everyone. (and before you ask, I have found the need to
spank my children.)

- Then you are unethical, and YES
- I can make that statement, which is
- different from dictating it
- (*Learn* the difference if learning is within your ability).
-*Tough **** if you don't like it, you brutal *******.

Don't Get Angry BpnJ,
.. . . and become a 'Grendel' . . .

=WRT=
- - it would have to be morally reprehensible to
- - spank a child,

To Some/Many It Is Morally Reprehensible
To Spank A Child [.]
= It Is Their Opinion/Belief based on their
Strong Personal Convictions

To Many/Most IT IS Morally Reprehensible and
Criminal To Spank A Child -condition- When You
Are Angry, Enraged and Out of Control of Your
Reasoning and Strength or use a Foreign Object [.]
= It Is Their Opinion/Belief based on their Strong
Personal Convictions : Plus a General Societal
Value that is Prescribed by Law {A Crime}.

- - and it is far from it.

NO : If Done Right It Can Have Value In Establishing
and Reinforcing Societal Core Values. -how-ever-
If Done Wrong It Needs To Be Controlled, Prohibited,
and Punished.

I have always thought that to get a Marriage License
the 'Couple' should be required to take a "Parenting"
Class which would include Parental Rights and Duties
including the Limited Use of Age Appropriate Corporal
Punishment and the Right Way To Do It to Teach the
Child the Consequences of Doing Right and Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment

(OT) : 'Special Dave' -proclaims- There Be Mayberry Meccas !
 

On Sep 15, 4:43*pm, dave wrote:
Day Brown wrote:

The spanking itself is merely the apex of a psychological process which
only takes a few seconds. Without it, such bullies would be physically
abusing smaller kids. Totally avoiding what you say is abuse is not
possible. Controlling it is, and while you may use drugs, I am very
concerned because there are no long term studies of the effect.

That is very twisted. *You better stay vin the 19th century. I pity your
children

BTW: the guy with the board is the bully.

- I'll bet there's a ****load of wife-swapping where you live.
-*That's been my experience in these Mayberry Meccas.

'Special Dave' ! Mayberry Meccas !
now that is what makes you 'special'
eaflap ~ RHF

(OT) : US Constitution Not Vague About "Freedom of Religion" . . .
 

On Sep 15, 10:38*pm, m II wrote:
dave wrote:
I'll bet there's a ****load of wife-swapping where you live. *That's
been my experience in these Mayberry Meccas.

That would explain the entire village raising the children. They never
know if they're looking after their own or not.

- It's probably where the perverse Mormon Elders
- got their ideas for their present day Harems.
- One of those scum has over 120 children from
- welfare collecting tramps.
-
- mike

Mike [M II],

There you good again Attacking Persons-of-Faith
and Singling out the Mormons for your Hate Speech.

With Canadians like Mike [M II] -one-most-ask-
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...a72cd4374a15e7

Can You Be a Christian or Jew or Muslim
{Any Person of Faith*} In Canada ?
* Add Mormons [LDS] to the Hated List
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...814a4b1c9b44e6

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 15, 10:41*pm, m II wrote:
- - lorad wrote:
- - Spare the rod and spoil the child.

- Spare the rod and *have* no child.
- mike

Simply have No Children and use the Rod for
.. . . a Fishing Pole ;-} ~ RHF

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 16, 8:22*am, Kevin Alfred Strom
wrote:
On 9/16/2010 2:14 AM, Brenda Ann wrote:





"Kevin Alfred *wrote in message
...

The founders must have been aware that such a situation could evolve,
hence their repeated words "Congress shall make no law..." -- surely the
most important statement in the entire document.

CONgress has been making unconstitutional law for many decades. *First
there's the flagrant violation of the Second Amendment by regulating WHO may
own or carry a gun. They've been doing that one for a very long time, and
they just keep slipping in more BS under the flag of protecting the public.
Protecting the public is the job of the police, not the CONgress passing
unconstitutional law.

Then there's due process, double jeopardy and ex-post-facto. They get around
that by saying the law is not punitive, but "regulative". And the SCOTUS
goes right along with it.

You're right.

And the illegal usurpation of power has been going on for a very
long time, with huge spikes of illegal "law-making" occurring during
and after major wars. Practically everything the regime in
Washington does now is unconstitutional.

It's gone beyond illegality and actually reached the point of
insanity now.

At one time, I opined that these pretended "laws" ought to be void
because, among many other reasons, there were so many of them that
no one person could ever even read them all in a single lifetime,
let alone understand or obey them. (This excess of "laws," by the
way, converts us from a government of laws into a government of men
-- men who can cherry pick a victim and then cherry pick a "law" to
charge him with violating, since all have violated some. Tax laws
are among their favorites in this regard.)

But it's worse now. Multiple-thousand-page "laws" are passed by
legislators who never even bother to read them. And really, they
couldn't even if they wanted to -- there are too many. It's beyond
insane, beyond Kafkaesque. May the gods end it all soon.

With all good wishes,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--http://kevinalfredstrom.com/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BTW, where in the US Constitution does it say that we must pay taxes
to the Federal government?

SPECIAL: Baikonor Kosmodrome
 

On Sep 16, 9:29*am, dave wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 15, 7:47 pm, *wrote:
wrote:
Why is NASA going to use Russian made Rockets to blast into outer Space?
That is vague, vague to me anyway.
cuhulin

Russian rockets pollute like crazy. *They should not get EPA waivers..

Baikonur is and always was in Kazakhstan. Doubt if any environmental
laws are in effect over the *after all these space and nuclear (!)
testing (the first was above ground and literally killed civilians)
going all the way back to late 40's ...

They are building a new space port in Asian Russia. Their lease with the
Kazakhs is expiring.

How do you clean up 50 square miles of hydrazine residue?

Now, that we have to ask Sasha Baron Cohen. He claimed to have a
special relationship with Kazakhstan ...