Oh i fergot. We'll need a volunteer to do the interpretation. I nominate Silver66. Otherwise I'm screwed.
Is it so difficult to cite the text from the Constitution that would conjure into existence the possibility of " unconstitutional trade restrictions on China " ?
Or is the real difficulty in admitting that no such text exists?
Is it worth it to you to use your full range of diversionary BS just to avoid admitting such a small detail? I mean, we've got Paul Simon, we've got random off topic text about trade between the States of the Union, we've got an attempt to rope Silver66 in to support your distractions.
Those are some deep pockets for sure, have not done enough research in these areas. I knew the Gates and Ford foundation were bad actors but I need to dig in a little. Thanks.
I Run Bartertown wrote: Is it so difficult to cite the text from the Constitution that would conjure into existence the possibility of " unconstitutional trade restrictions on China " ? Or is the real difficulty in admitting that no such text exists? Is it worth it to you to use your full range of diversionary BS just to avoid admitting such a small detail? I mean, we've got Paul Simon, we've got random off topic text about trade between the States of the Union, we've got an attempt to rope Silver66 in to support your distractions. Why, man? Just why?
It's in the freakin' preamble lazy ass. Go read it and post it here. Or just memorize it. Stop being a drama queen and provide some hardcore analysis besides Trump's twitter feed which never means what you think it means.
And then after you post it, and you say, it doesn't say that (because you will because that's how the conversation is moving. I say yes, you say no) , look up free trade vs protectionism and post the case history of positive outcomes that don't include banks closing (see the article AM posted in the Setup on banking from NPR), for fear of customers loosing all their money, the effect on money supply, and post case histories of trade protectionism and how companies lost the ability to service their debts, which further depressed growth and trade. See if you can find a benefit besides retaliation by America’s trading partners, cutting off U.S. exports depressing trade and growth.
If you fear getting a paper cut from googling, then just google smoot hawley act and it's effect.
It looks to me that as much as Trump wants to do good and accomplish the things you would like to have him accomplish, his methods are walking us right into the oncoming trend. Call me crazy, but I'd walk away from trouble instead of inviting it.
No need to paste your findings for me because I've been down this rabbit hole. And if you're looking for my help to see where to find it in the constitution, that would mean, u don't much concern yourself with such issues. We're really at a late stage in the game where American's have totally forgot what it says. You wouldn't bat an eye lash moaning about a broken carburetor, but a silly thing like the constitution needs me to look it up for you???. I invoke Silver66 because he obviously has taken his free time to research this type of stuff.
If I call Donald Trump a tooty fruity fruit fly from TAzmania and there is a criminal law against tooty fruity fruit flies, and I can prove a reasonable suspicion which is the legal standard of proof, he must be arrested! Once he is arrested, he is assumed guilty until proven otherwise.
I know, they never taught you that at school. But any lawyer knows it. You thought you were innocent until proven guilty? Nope. It's not how it works out.
While I am generous with my analysis of issues, in our system of justice, once the accusation is made, the onus is now on you to build a defense. And to simply reply, BULLSHIT while it might work on a forum with other people will have the same emotion, it doesn't work in real life. You'd have your ass in jail if you made that arguement. It's just that I'm a nice guy and I usually do it for you. But I'm trying it the other way. The way it works in reality.
Now if it pisses you off, you just learned what it feels like to be the screaming liberals out on the street. They aren't "bad" people. They are just a little confused. So if Trump intentionally puts them into cognitive dissonance, and he keeps doing it, they become dangerous. The same dynamic here. It must be a New York thing.
Holy shit, aren't you on a roll today.
No, I've never resigned the anarchist party, and I never will.
The reality of the situation, does need to be addressed. I'm sure you will recall that I said that Trump would be handed unprecedented powers, thanks to Obama, and has the makings of the ultimate tyrant.
Personally, I am diametrically opposed to many of his policies, because just like the last asshole in charge, they all make government bigger, stronger, more powerful, and more repressive. Inevitably, they will simply steal more from the productive to pay for the parasite class in government, and the parasite class that stays home and watches TV, drinks beer, and does drugs all day. It's the Great American Way. We would be better off if both parasite classes worked the latter agenda.
For example, if I was President, I would have one Executive Order.
It would state:
................................................."All Federal employees are now fired"................................................
I would then, resign.
Of course, Trump has a distinctly different agenda, and for now, I'm just watching.
Speaking of tariffs,
I've got a little story for you...
A few years back, the famous Dr. Jerome of Turdville sent me a book on rhetoric that he had just written, to share with my daughter.
She was in high school at the time, and used to engage in numerous debates. It's something her history teacher was into.
Thanks to Dr. Jerome's book, she learned to argue both sides of any issue, and could consistently win most debates with her opening statement.
Last year, when I picked her up from college, on the way back to our home, we had many hours to kill in the car.
The night before, I had listened to Stefan Molyneux debate someone over the question as to whether there was ever any such thing as good government.
Stefan took the side of the argument that there is no such thing.
I had mentioned that to my daughter, and she said she would take the other side of the debate, and have at it with me.
I opened up with my statement, I think you know by now how I feel about government. I don't necessarily need to go into the details here.
In her opening statement she said, that the constitutional form of government originally conceived by the founding fathers in United States was good governance, because it abided by all natural laws.
Since I had already use the phrase "all taxes are theft" in my opening statement, she countered that the original federal government survived on tariffs on imported goods, which were essentially luxury items, since most of the original settlers we're quite capable of producing their own goods and services, and had literally no need for imports.
The policy was designed to build a strong country, based on self reliance, for everyone.
Although she admitted that we have strayed incredibly far from the concept, upon our country's founding, most people were quite capable of making what they needed. She even used me as an example of someone who could make anything out of anything, and make it work. Since only imports were taxed, and everything you ever needed was made here, paying such a tax was completely voluntary.
Since the only federal tax was voluntary, it did not violate any natural laws. The rest of the constitution insured all of our natural human rights.
In a state of shock, and dismay, I had to concede.
She had kicked my ass.
By the way Dr. Jerome, If you're reading this, thanks a lot.
Please share the name of the book that Jerome recommended. I'll return the favor by giving you a bunch on the same subject. I should make sure I haven't missed any. If you prefer to share privately, you can reach me either at tfmetals@greenlantern or tfmetals@007;) Just use the PM or whatever we call it.
I shouldn't do this but go back and watch the video's I posted on the socratic arguement that pissed off Bernie Sanders and all those congressman. The guy hasn't posted any recently, i suspect he pissed people off enough that somebody hung him from a lamp post.
Hint: Never do it in real life with real people unless you have a physical advantage and you want to use it or the issue is something life changing and you need to defend yourself verbally. Like save a job or prevent some asshole physics professor from giving you a C when he taught you how to solve the equation incorrectly. It was last resort.
It is designed to drive men out of their minds and once you hit the cognitive dissonance, you'll know it. Then get out of dodge quickly. When it is not over devisive subjects, it's meant to be a teaching tool.
I'm not making the argument to bring in 1000's of refugees'
I met somebody I haven't seen in over 25 years. She was tired of her job and created something else. All of a sudden a University in Saudi Arabia called her and asked her if she would come teach. I said WHAT???? WHERE????
Almost an hour and 1/2 conversation asking her about life in Saudi. It's NOT for me and It's definitely NOT for you. You wouldn't make it back alive. Because they would be able to smell your thoughts. Seriously Somehow she was able to adapt. The story get's deeper but not going there becuase somehow something helped her change her vibration where she could melt within that society.
She wears all the religious wear but she doesn't have to. She doesn't resonate with it but she doesn't hate it either. It just makes her life easy. But she told me story after story of her experiences with genuine people, some very heart warming and some who got her back and she has given an immense amount to these people and they reciprocrate.
So I'm not saying your wrong about the repercussions of refugee's in our society. And I'm not saying we should give them a free pass but I will repeat what I've said in the past. It's not a monolithic society. It's not a monolithic religion either. Not even close.
I like the cut of her jib
Here is a tidbit for you if you decide to take her on again.
There is one fundamental principle of law which is of paramount importance to the present case and on which both counsel agreed, undoubtedly because it is so universally recognized, not only by common law countries but by all nations and from time immemorial. That principle is that citizenship is not a right but a privilege.
for inquiring minds this is but one of the bread crumbs to natural law that the courts are well aware of.
remember that we have the right of free association which includes the right not to associate
Silver66 Rage against the dying of the light
The book that Dr. Jerome shared with me, was written by him, and as of three or four years ago, was not yet named.
I think it was a work in progress.
I would have to go through several thousand emails on my old MacBook Pro, to see if I could find it, or, maybe I'll just send Dr. Jerome a message, and see if he has an update.
Apparently, Dr. Jerome is a college professor, and teaches rhetoric. It's his area of expertise.
It was damn good stuff.
I think my daughter has it memorized.
Personally, I can't remember shit.
I just sent Dr. Jerome a PM.
I'll let you know what he comes up with.
It would be nice to have the option to buy private medical insurance, though it would really suck to pay for it twice.
Some of us go to the US for treatment, assuming we can pay for it.
I've created a little monster, but she has a heart of gold. I won't be debating her again on that topic anytime soon.
I do know with all of the research I went through last year, our entire legal system is a monumental pile of bullshit.
Yes, with a proper education it can be navigated, but I'm not delving into that at the moment.
I'm kind of waiting to see whether or not "a return to a constitutional republic" has any meaning whatsoever, and if so, exactly what.
The Trump administration has its hands full at the moment, they are literally fighting a Civil War. I think Trump's first priority right now, is victory. Personally, I would have different priorities, but without Congress, and without a cabinet, he's probably just doing whatever he can for now.
He really can't drain any swamp without his own attorney general. We will know a lot more of his agenda immediately after a confirmation.
President Trump, at 9:16 p.m. Monday, announced the firing of the acting attorney general who had defied him on his migrant-travel ban, saying she "has betrayed the Department of Justice."
Sally Yates, an Obama holdover, had ordered the Justice Department not to defend his executive order restricting migrant travel.
Here is the text, emailed to reporters:
Statement on the Appointment of Dana Boente as Acting Attorney General
The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.
Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.
It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.
Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons.
"I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected," said Dana Boente, Acting Attorney General.
Washington State Sues Trump To Block Immigration Executive Order Nationwide, Microsoft Is Helping
One day after 16 democratic attorneys general across the United States condemned President Trump's order to restrict people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the country, on Monday one of them - the Attorney General of Washington state - said he is filing a lawsuit against President Donald Trump over his immigration executive order.
Dear Jim, (NWVIEW)
This story is a perfect example of why I advocate that you find something better to do then to pay building permit fees upwards of $50,000, plus taxes, to a bunch of malevolent psychopaths who use that money to hire lawyers to argue for the importation of Satanic bastards who wish to cut your head off.
It's a matter of perspective I guess.
That story is quite significant, in that now there is an acting Atty. Gen. Who will actually uphold the law.
We haven't had one of them in a very long time.
Theoretically speaking, Trump doesn't need Sessions anymore, he just needs a law abiding Atty. Gen.
Let the draining of the Swamp commence now!
Published on Jan 30, 2017
Event Is Coming Soon - Who Owns and Controls the Military-Industrial Complex
We are not only incensed that our elected officials are turning a blind eye to the transnational enemy within our country and around the world, we are disgusted with these warlords, both military and corporate, that send our sons and daughters to wars-for-profit to have their blood spilled for their own families’ profits. As citizens of the world, we are filled with anger when we see men, women, and children slaughtered and displaced so that the few at the top can earn profits from blood and guns. We are sick and tired of wars ad nauseam, from our fathers who were killed in Viet Nam, our neighbors on 9-11, displaced war refugees around the world, not to mention the millions of starving children around the world who could use the money we spend on DARPA and their war tools for clean water, food, and education.
This anger has arisen in us to the point that we had to find out WHO IS IN CHARGE. Unlike many of our politicians, we know that naming our enemy is the first step towards identifying and disarming them.