Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 90

Thread: "After America... North America"

  1. #21
    Senior Member Adam Bomm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,513
    Thanks
    2,116
    Thanked 1,064 Times in 778 Posts

    Re: "After America... North America"

    I sense the nasty nature of Rupert Murdoch!

    All people are chained down to heavy toil by poverty more firmly than ever. They were chained by slavery and serfdom; from these, one way and another, they might free themselves. These could be settled with, but from want they will never get away. We have included in the constitution such rights as to the masses appear fictitious and not actual rights. All these so-called "Peoples Rights" can exist only in idea, an idea which can never be realized in practical life. What is it to the proletariat laborer, bowed double over his heavy toil, crushed by his lot in life, if talkers get the right to babble, if journalists get the right to scribble any nonsense side by side with good stuff, once the proletariat has no other profit out of the constitution save only those pitiful crumbs which we fling them from our table in return for their voting in favor of what we dictate, in favor of the men we place in power, the servants of our AGENTUR ... Republican rights for a poor man are no more than a bitter piece of irony, for the necessity he is under of toiling almost all day gives him no present use of them, but the other hand robs him of all guarantee of regular and certain earnings by making him dependent on strikes by his comrades or lockouts by his masters.'

    My note: And this is why the newly disaffected are so pissed, they have been screwing themselves for generations by falling into all of the above traps.
    Last edited by Adam Bomm; 09-10-2016 at 10:22 AM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Adam Bomm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,513
    Thanks
    2,116
    Thanked 1,064 Times in 778 Posts

    Re: "After America... North America"

    Definition of Success!

    "Babblers, inexhaustible, have turned into oratorical contests the sittings of Parliament and Administrative Boards. Bold journalists and unscrupulous pamphleteers daily fall upon executive officials. Abuses of power will put the final touch in preparing all institutions for their overthrow and everything will fly skyward under the blows of the maddened mob."

  3. #23
    Senior Member Adam Bomm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,513
    Thanks
    2,116
    Thanked 1,064 Times in 778 Posts

    Re: "After America... North America"

    So far, So good for the bad guys!

    "But even freedom might be harmless and have its place in the State economy without injury to the well-being of the peoples if it rested upon the foundation of faith in God, upon the brotherhood of humanity, unconnected with the conception of equality, which is negatived by the very laws of creation, for they have established subordination. With such a faith as this a people might be governed by a wardship of parishes, and would walk contentedly and humbly under the guiding hand of its spiritual pastor submitting to the dispositions of God upon earth. This is the reason why IT IS INDISPENSABLE FOR US TO UNDERMINE ALL FAITH, TO TEAR OUT OF THE MIND OF THE "GOYIM" THE VERY PRINCIPLE OF GOD-HEAD AND THE SPIRIT, AND TO PUT IN ITS PLACE ARITHMETICAL CALCULATIONS AND MATERIAL NEEDS."
    Last edited by Adam Bomm; 09-10-2016 at 10:33 AM.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Adam Bomm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,513
    Thanks
    2,116
    Thanked 1,064 Times in 778 Posts

    Re: "After America... North America"

    Another one of those Hmmm things.

    "The intensified struggle for superiority and shocks delivered to economic life will create, nay, have already created, disenchanted, cold and heartless communities. Such communities will foster a strong aversion towards the higher political and towards religion. Their only guide is gain, that is Gold, which they will erect into a veritable cult, for the sake of those material delights which it can give. Then will the hour strike when, not for the sake of attaining the good, not even to win wealth, but solely out of hatred towards the privileged, the lower classes of the GOYIM will follow our lead against our rivals for power, the intellectuals of the GOYIM."

  5. #25
    In Memory Fredkc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    567
    Thanks
    108
    Thanked 1,035 Times in 443 Posts

    Re: "After America... North America"

    Folks called in from all the way in NY to describe how the woman's actions traumatized them.
    My first reaction was two-fold.
    A) "Awwww, someone get these folk a bowl of soup, and a warm blankie to cuddle up with."
    B) Then the li'l guy on my other shoulder said, "Or, get them a N.Y. City cop, with a broom stick, so maybe they'll understand what the word 'traumatized' actually means."

    There was a thing going around on the Inet about 10 years ago. A sort of "Bill Of No-Rights". My favorite:
    "You do not have the right to never be insulted. You are, of course, free to change the channel, at any time."

    The cops said....we can't charge her.
    A Tom Selleck line, as Chief of Police, from the Jesse Stone movies:
    "I'm not in the right, and wrong business. I'm in the legal, and illegal business."

    Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one's party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority.
    Freedom is not some gift bestowed. What makes it a "fact" is each person's ability, and determination to make it so. Or, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "anyone who expects to muddle through, blindly ignorant is fooling themselves, and not likely to remain free."

    "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." isn't about repelling the borders of the country. It's about keeping the monster in Washington D.C. contained, lest it run over you like a bug. Which is basically whats happened.

    The political has nothing in common with the moral.
    "Government is force." - G. Washington.

    Government, of any kind, is completely incapable of being moral. Anyone who misses that, will always be confused. Lemme offer you proof:
    At one time, the US government had absolutely nothing to say on the matter of abortion. This was basically "correct", in that the Constitution, gave it no authority on the matter. That made it a "state's rights" issue.

    Next, the US government decided that it was illegal, tantamount to murder, and so prosecuted it with great fervor.

    Then, the US government decided that it was perfectly legal, and defended that with the same fervor.

    In each case, government carried on it's neglect, prosecution, and defense, with the "full power of the government", unquestioningly.

    Now for the trick question:
    Exactly when was the government behaving morally?
    Answer: Never. It was, and remains incapable.
    Last edited by Fredkc; 09-10-2016 at 11:42 AM.
    "Life IS mystical! Its just that we're used to it." - Wolf, the movie
    "Dad, if God is everywhere then, when he's in a piece of paper, is he squished?" - My daughter, age 7

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Fredkc For This Useful Post:

    9eagle9 (09-11-2016)

  7. #26
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Meaniapolis
    Posts
    1,925
    Thanks
    1,173
    Thanked 2,977 Times in 1,285 Posts

    Re: "After America... North America"

    American principles of governance that include that the government should behave morally means the Government does what its supposed to do; legislate laws that preserve our rights and enforce those laws. That doesn't automatically mean it needs to go out of its way to behave immorally. It is the separation of church and state.

    The government isn't in the right or wrong business either. Its either legal or illegal or lawful or unlawful but the Tom Selleck quote certainly refers to the two different jurisdictions at work, opposing each other. What is legal , what is lawful, what is illegal and what is unlawful. Those lights come on behind you, you have to decide what jurisdiction you will stand in. Leave it up to the police and they will use their jurisdiction.

    Government: It is with respect the laws that preserve our rights (not liking them or feeling good about them). Government: It is to legislate laws that preserve our rights primarily in terms of penalties associated to violation of rights and preservation of the laws that preserve rights. You cannot force anyone to respect the rights of other by law or any decree but penalties for abusing the rights of others.

    We are a nation of cause and effect.


    The government doesn't grant rights, nor does the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It is to act in a way that preserves rights. Hence the FBI attempts to get the Public to understand they cannot charge Hillary. Someone else must. Due process.

    A question of jurisdiction. Is this a matter of de jure goverment for the people or a commercial matter of the Corporate US?

    To insist the government behave morally is violation of the principles it was founded on like the abortion matter. The public drug that into the House via their representatives that the public elected. Also that is violation of the 4th amendment. The public insisted on it and we are the powers.

    Abortion is a 4th amendment matter and it should be kept private, not danced out in DC in public. Keeping it with the state is the balanced equation. Who insists it must be so?

    I go to town meetings here. Abortion is a big issue. The officials don't bring up the matter of abortion, the public does. The public having no arguement but just moral outrage leave it up to the officials to argue.


    Bringing up morality issues is merely confusing America with Canada and the UK which has its figure head administering the morality of the Church of England. Which is why it is so difficult to explain American Common law to people who were not raised here. YET those not raised here seem to know every drib and drab of common law and even assign morality to it with indignant moral outrage. When the feckin articles themselves leave morality out of it. That cannot be respected for some reason.

    Socialist nations are spoon fed morality from the highest offices. We were not designed that way, we have the separation of church and state. Reason of the law separate from personal morality.

    We don't need morality. The reason of law and respect to the law results in a moral effect. One doesn't have to make morality laws.

    Example: Hey if you don't steal from anyone things are okay right? Its against the law to steal. That's an okay law isn't it? A law that preserves your right to your property. If you don't steal,everything is hunkey dorey for you, and for the people who retain their personal property. Everyone wins! Why does a morality need to be imposed on what is cause and effect? It doesn't have to be a moral issue. Why does that have to be good or bad. Isn't the effect good? You stay our of prison and people get to keep their property.

    Why are we insisting the FBI should behave morally when American law makes it clear there is a separation of church (the morality) and the state. People think that gives us the right to go to church (or not) but its about keeping the morality out of the law, the emotional tension. The same emotional tension that caused the public to get their knickers in a wad over a woman who didn't' do anything wrong. How do you correct someone who didn't anything wrong.

    Why is the public INSISTING that the FBI should behave morally and violate the laws that check its power which would result in the destruction of due process and promote fascism. Isn't it good that in this instance the FBI isn't promoting fascism? Because the Public is ignorant and so raddled with emotionally generated morality they don't see reason.

    Why does the public via their state representatives they elected to rep the matter of abortion in DC violate the 4th amendment . How is that moral? How does that make people who think they are acting morally, moral when they are violating the principles the nation was founded on..which isn't morality.

    Outraged indignation is the first sign of learned helplessness and ignorance.

    Are we confusing morality with respect? Governance with the law? Law enforcement with law. Correction with morality?

    Correct some folks from abroad (and here) about how American law doesn't overtly include morality and see the moral, outraged indignation that occurs. See the moral condemnation that comes down on your head for stating the facts.


    When the FBI says it cannot charge or indict Clinton it is correct and with respect of American principles as it pertains to the PEOPLE. Someone else needs to be doing the charging and the indicting. What the FBI is privately enforcing would not be immediately noticeable because its...ahem, private.

    The public is still the powers. Just like the cops telling the public here: We cannot charge her. That is not our job. Our job is to investigate and then arrest if necessary, not charge, indict, be the judge and the jury or execute a sentence. That is violating the law if we should so seek to do so. The public didn't respect the fact the cops didn't jump jurisdiction. Then if its a moral issue the public is immoral. The trickle up effect. So will our government be immoral..or moral. It will leak in there violating the principles of church and state separation.

    Correction, not morality.

    Yet in their moral outrage over a woman who acted within the law the public insisted they step out of jurisdiction, step away from the powers that limit them, charge her, kill her, do anything to get that woman that made us so uncomfortable out of our sight. The DA caved in to the powers of the People in violation of the law. At their insistence. They were the powers in the matter. It was abuse of power.

    That is what is meant by 'we are the powers'. We are just destroying the American principle with them because of morality. Injured feelings and outraged indignation that drives people to violate the law--there's the morality. Like it?

    Not a moral issue, but one of violation of certain laws because they don't boost our morale or make us feel good.

    Let's test violating some laws...in moral outraged indignation go jump off a 4 story building and see what happens.

    Now if you respect the law of gravity and don't jump off the roof what will happen?

    Which is more moral. Its not a question of morality is it? Its a question of effect. You can jump off the roof all you want and break as many legs as you want and you have the right to do that as long as you are not harming anyone else.
    Last edited by 9eagle9; 09-11-2016 at 06:05 AM.

  8. #27
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Meaniapolis
    Posts
    1,925
    Thanks
    1,173
    Thanked 2,977 Times in 1,285 Posts

    Re: "After America... North America"

    I might add the matter of abortion can only be argued if it is placed in a perspective of violation of rights...not morality.

    Upholding the laws that preserve rights is only by correct behavior...not 'feelings' not morality.

    The public more often waives its rights than it has them seized from them.

  9. #28
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Meaniapolis
    Posts
    1,925
    Thanks
    1,173
    Thanked 2,977 Times in 1,285 Posts

    Re: "After America... North America"

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Bomm View Post
    Eagle, that is a good point..the woman did what she did, I don't feel traumatized but it is dangerously close to vigilantism. And there are all kinds of ramifications to that slippery slope.
    And so you are dangerously treading on vigilantism...hypocrite much? Why are you better than her in doing so.

    'Cept...

    Vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands..as the public in question attempted to do. Arresting flight isn't acting as a vigilante.(Not in Michigan anyway). Shooting both the felons in the back would be vigilante(acting above what the law allows).

    Acting within the law is not vigilantism but confusing acting within the law with lawlessness. Not shocking that socialists confuse the two. That is what they do. Supplant reason of the law with their feelings, emotions and other components of morality, the great 'what if 'instead of what actually happened. Our laws have to go by what actually happens not the terrified 'what ifs' of a pussified nation.

    Conversely everyone in the parking lot could have gotten a bad sunburn but no one did.

    She was no where near acting as vigilante. To a sissified public witnessing someone who knows what they are doing taking a correct behavior which they are not familiar with, with a scary weapon they have zero knowledge about ....it just *seems* dangerous. But its not playing at vigilante. That is construed as reckless behavior not measured behavior. No slippery slope, no grassy knoll. Our common law (in Michigan) determines that you may arrest the flight of a felon, you are not absolutely required to and if you choose either you are not in violation. Its called PUBLIC safety. The public keeps themselves and each other safe which reduces the need for law enforcement...viola! Cause and effect. We are supposed to assist Law enforcement whenever possible. (Not to be confused with tattlign and ratting out your neighbor over moral issues)

    However this requires the use of reason (we don't feelings and guns mixing).

    But if one can measure a situation, draw a weapon, fire upon the tire of an escaping car without injuring bystanders. (Real ones, not the ones sitting on the couch and getting frightened to death by the evening news) that shows that her actions were not reckless , she is within the law, and she knew what she was doing and there was no apparent danger. It exists only in one's mind.

    What she SHOWED is more compelling than what the sissies are saying. Compelling evidence vs hearsay.

    Like my neighbors who go for their daily morning walk whilst I'm picking out the pony's feet . The neighbors always fret. Isn't that dangerous?

    It could be..if I didn't know what I was doing. Since you don't know how to do it...it seems dangerous.

    They could kick you.

    yes! They could kick me. Before that they could step on me, I could drop their foot on my foot, I could collapse under the weight of a 1200 pound animal, they could turn their necks and bite my behind. They could rear. They could fall on me. I know a million zillion other things that could happen besides getting kicked. But I won't get kicked because I'm holding their feet. So they can't kick me. Alternately a bomb could drop on my head or I could have a stroke holding up 1200 pound animal. Can we have a comprehensive list of what exactly we all need to be frightened to death about in lieu of real and apparent danger? Everything including freedom? People who know what they are doing seems to top the list of 'things to fear.'


    The fact that we are to remain vigilant to preserve freedom and then making vigilant some sort of moral failing is a contradiction to the principles America was established on.

    While its probably not overtly physically dangerous to watch TV I'd suggest sitting on the couch and being frightened to death by events that are happening miles and miles away isn't exactly healthy...

    ...and actually... to persecute people with having no knowledge of what exactly occurred and applying laws that don't exist to affect an outcome that is not beneficial to an innocent person IS VIGILANTISM.


    So would be suggesting she is one when the evidence shows otherwise.

    That is why people hate the law its based on reason not fear or other morality emotions.

  10. #29
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Meaniapolis
    Posts
    1,925
    Thanks
    1,173
    Thanked 2,977 Times in 1,285 Posts

    Re: "After America... North America"

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Bomm View Post
    So far, So good for the bad guys!

    "But even freedom might be harmless and have its place in the State economy without injury to the well-being of the peoples if it rested upon the foundation of faith in God, upon the brotherhood of humanity, unconnected with the conception of equality, which is negatived by the very laws of creation, for they have established subordination. With such a faith as this a people might be governed by a wardship of parishes, and would walk contentedly and humbly under the guiding hand of its spiritual pastor submitting to the dispositions of God upon earth. This is the reason why IT IS INDISPENSABLE FOR US TO UNDERMINE ALL FAITH, TO TEAR OUT OF THE MIND OF THE "GOYIM" THE VERY PRINCIPLE OF GOD-HEAD AND THE SPIRIT, AND TO PUT IN ITS PLACE ARITHMETICAL CALCULATIONS AND MATERIAL NEEDS."
    The word faith is used with GOOD reason.

    Faith is reason based. It's wrought from experience of God, cause and effect. This is very helpful. SUBMITTING to the dispositions of God upon earth. Respecting natural law! Comprehending you cannot beat nature or violate the natural laws without some chaos ensuing. Faith in God means there is very little need for material needs and arithmetical calculations would only be required for arithmetic, not how one functions personally.

    Yes they must tear out all faith. But that doesn't mean you have to give it up.

    Faith in reason (not emotions) not morality.

    Religion is really a sort of useful tool for keeping the idiots from tromping all over folk's rights. Scare them into respecting rights when that respect cannot be given freely. Some semblance of order is maintained. But it causes moral chaos now so religion is failing to keep the idiots in line.

    Zionism is just another religion...where the Zionists play God.

    What is really required to have real faith in God is experience of God. Something substantial to hang one's hats on but if people are dancing in false morality and beliefs...they won't have the experience.

    Let's turn this into a God discussion and see what sort of **** fit occurs. the Zionist fur will fly.

    Oh wait...God is private matter. Let's not violate our right to privacy. The Bible noted people shouldn't make outward displays of piousness because its not real and just for show.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to 9eagle9 For This Useful Post:

    Adam Bomm (09-11-2016)

  12. #30
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Meaniapolis
    Posts
    1,925
    Thanks
    1,173
    Thanked 2,977 Times in 1,285 Posts

    Re: "After America... North America"

    When did authority fall in to the category of moral failing. Should you not have self authority in anything you do? How do people function without having some authority over their lives?

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to 9eagle9 For This Useful Post:

    Adam Bomm (09-11-2016)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •