US Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land

"Bla bla bla...."

I want no part of anyone who advocates anarchy or lawless behavior.

What Bob is trying to say is that he is a mindless automaton drone who lacks his own system of moral judgement... and will do whatever master says of him.

The year is 1850 and Bob doesn't own slaves. A woman comes to his door, back bleeding from being whipped, and she begs for help. Bob says sorry, you're advocating lawless behavior, slams the door in her face and subsequently notifies the authorities. It is the law, after-all.

The year is 1943 and Bob is a German citizen who personally doesn't have a problem with jews, gypsies, homosexuals, or political dissidents. A jew comes to his door, just a few steps ahead of the Gestapo which is pursuing, and begs for help. Bob says sorry, you're advocating lawless behavior, slams the door in his face and subsequently flags down the Gestapo in the street to alert them to the direction that the jew fled in. It is the law, after-all.

Tomorrow the government passes a law that says no one may own furniture that is brown. Bob owns five pieces of brown furniture. Count on seeing Bob taking all his furniture to his front yard for garbage pickup.

The day after the government bans brown furniture, the government passes a law requiring brown furniture. Count on seeing Bob tote his furniture back inside.

The day after that... the government bans the brown furniture again. Look outside your window, sure enough, there is Bob toting his furniture back outside.

Bob sounds like a good slave. Politicians love people like Bob.

"t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right... Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice." - Henry David Thoreau

Bob: Good people break bad laws. Good people should break bad laws.

I want no part of anyone who advocates anarchy or lawless behavior.

When the law hurts innocent people, I support lawless behavior.
 
"Bla bla bla...."

I want no part of anyone who advocates anarchy or lawless behavior.


So, you are hiding your head in the sand, not bringing anything besides unfounded accusations.... I figured you would probably do that......

Remember.... Our country WOULD NOT EVEN EXIST if the founding fathers thought/acted like you bob.....


Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.
-Thomas Jefferson


PS.... You might want to actually know the definition of words BEFORE you try to use them.....


Definition of ANARCHY

1
a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a Link Removed society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order

Definition of LAWLESS

1
: not regulated by or based on law

2
a : not restrained or controlled by law : unruly b : illegal

— law·less·ly adverb
— law·less·ness noun


bob... WHERE IN ANY OF MY POSTS... did I advocate "anarchy" or "lawlessness"?

Ignoring "laws" that do not line up with the Constitution, and actually advocating following the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND is the OPPOSITE of what you have accused me of by calling me an anarchist....or saying that I want lawless behavior...


It amazes me how you can even remember to breathe bob.....
 
So, you are hiding your head in the sand, not bringing anything besides unfounded accusations....
Ignoring "laws" that do not line up with the Constitution, and actually advocating following the SUPREME law of the land is the OPPOSITE of what you have accused me of by calling me an anarchist....or saying that I want lawless behavior...

You're absolutely correct. Any law which violates the Constitution isn't a law at all... as all laws must comport else they are void. Any politician who votes for a law which violates the Constitution has violated their oath and should be removed from office. Perhaps, even, charged with treason.

Politicians don't care about the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCsONZh6qI) which means that We The People, should.

The word "anarchy" is commonly associated with chaos or the throwing of molotov cocktails. Both are completley untrue. In an anarchist system, there would be no monopoly on violence (government) that can use brute force, bullets, and threats to get its way.

If you look up the definition of "terrorism" in the dictionary, it %100 nails what the government does:

ter·ror·ism/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Someone, anyone, please tell me that the government does not "use violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

That's right, the government terrorizes.

It amazes me how you can even remember to breathe bob.....

Here's hoping we're helping Bob see things from a different perspective.
 
You're absolutely correct. Any law which violates the Constitution isn't a law at all... as all laws must comport else they are void. Any politician who votes for a law which violates the Constitution has violated their oath and should be removed from office. Perhaps, even, charged with treason.

Politicians don't care about the Constitution (YouTube - Another politician admits willingness to ignore Constitution) which means that We The People, should.

The word "anarchy" is commonly associated with chaos or the throwing of molotov cocktails. Both are completley untrue. In an anarchist system, there would be no monopoly on violence (government) that can use brute force, bullets, and threats to get its way.

If you look up the definition of "terrorism" in the dictionary, it %100 nails what the government does:



Someone, anyone, please tell me that the government does not "use violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

That's right, the government terrorizes.



Here's hoping we're helping Bob see things from a different perspective.

I feel sorry for Bob, he obviously doesn't get the big picture, We the people need to take back our rights, our government has gotten corrupt and powerfull because we became complacement.... We all need to wake up and fight for what our constitution gave us.
 
I feel sorry for Bob, he obviously doesn't get the big picture, We the people need to take back our rights, our government has gotten corrupt and powerfull because we became complacement.... We all need to wake up and fight for what our constitution gave us.

+1 ... but I'd like to make one small correction.

The Constitution didn't give us rights. We have rights... they're there simply because we exist.

The Constitution restricts the government from taking existing rights away.

:)
 
This is the New Improved America. What Constitution? What rights?


So sad, yet so true..... That quote seems to be the reality of our country these days....

I have a solution to it for my own life though... I live my life as free from their unconstitutional crap as I can.

Resist them.... Starve them...... Cut off their funds in any way that you can get away with..... Refuse to give in...
 
So sad, yet so true..... That quote seems to be the reality of our country these days....

I have a solution to it for my own life though... I live my life as free from their unconstitutional crap as I can.

Resist them.... Starve them...... Cut off their funds in any way that you can get away with..... Refuse to give in...

Here's a good question for you.

Definition of a citizen:

cit·i·zen   
[sit-uh-zuhn, -suhn]
-noun

a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection ( distinguished from alien).

So we're entitled to protection, right?

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrong.


By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police. The court held that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection.

So since we're not entitled to protection.... we're not "citizens." Does that make us serfs?
 
Might as well be serfs. Although I'm more of a belief of Share Croppers. Gov't keeps part of everything I produce. Heck might as well be in the Middle Ages. At least there was no BS about the Elites and the working man/woman.
Remind me again why there was this mass exodus from Europe years ago?
 
Those polititions think if they pay us some lip service we'll all go away, but their wrong, we won't go away, we will keep writing letters, we will keep speaking out and speaking up untill they listen..... It's an old saying from the 70's, But it is time to bring it back...POWER TO THE PEOPLE...
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,532
Messages
610,702
Members
75,032
Latest member
BLACKROCK6
Back
Top