31 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeySo then Rush Limbaugh's job is done, here.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-hate-the-u-s-government-more-than-ever/
A handful of industries are those "love to hate" types of businesses, such as cable-television companies and Internet service providers.
The federal government has joined the ranks of the bottom-of-the-barrel industries, according to a new survey from the American Customer Sat ...[text shortened]... ernment report is based on surveys with more than 2,000 people who were surveyed late last year.
31 Jan 16
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderLeast trusted professions:
You really should look at the actual poll before relying on misleading headlines.
In fact, the survey said 63.9% of citizens were satisfied with their experiences with government. Interestingly and contrary to your constant ranting against the federal government and for State and local government replacing it in virtually all areas, there was no diff ...[text shortened]... er-satisfaction-reports/reports-2015/acsi-federal-government-report-2015
ReplyReply & QuoteEdit
10. Business Executives
9. State Governors
8. Lawyers
7. Insurance Salespeople
6. Senators
5. HMO Managers
4. Stockbrokers
3. Advertising Executives
2. Members of Congress
1. Car Salespeople
This is just one poll, you'll be hard pressed to find a survey that does not have a scattering of pollies in the least trusted 10. The difference is of course you can just hang up on the insurance salespeople.
Edit: The poll in the Telegraph has politicians at the bottom.
Originally posted by no1marauderTraitorous might describe folks like Lincoln who by force extended the power of the federal government past what any of the founders ever thought could happen.
Somehow that statement from someone flying a 'tflag isn't all that convincing.
The CSA made no traitorous propositions to overthrow the central government in Washington. They sought as did the founders, to establish a new government. If you object to the actions of the CSA, you must by extension object to the Declaration of Independence, and the Revolutionary war.
In similar manner, it didn't seek to overthrow the British empire. Only to establish self government in colonial American. Wasn't the American revolution, basically traitorous to the British crown?
Originally posted by normbenignCheck your Constitution and see how treason is defined. Then explain to me how firing on US troops at Ft. Sumter wasn't treason.
Traitorous might describe folks like Lincoln who by force extended the power of the federal government past what any of the founders ever thought could happen.
The CSA made no traitorous propositions to overthrow the central government in Washington. They sought as did the founders, to establish a new government. If you object to the actions of the C ...[text shortened]... n colonial American. Wasn't the American revolution, basically traitorous to the British crown?
As I have shown many times on this forum, the stated views of the Framers was that secession was not allowed and that insurrection could be put down by force if necessary (see the Whiskey Rebellion for further details). Lincoln was following in that tradition; Jefferson Davis wasn't.
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by no1marauderExplain to me, how Ft. Sumpter wasn't a military base in a foreign country, there without permission of the host country?
Check your Constitution and see how treason is defined. Then explain to me how firing on US troops at Ft. Sumter wasn't treason.
As I have shown many times on this forum, the stated views of the Framers was that secession was not allowed and that insurrection could be put down by force if necessary (see the Whiskey Rebellion for further details). Lincoln was following in that tradition; Jefferson Davis wasn't.
No one was harmed in the shelling of Sumpter, and the garrison was allowed to leave without incident, with the aid of the S. Carolinians. If you object to southerners firing on a Northern fort in their harbor, then are you equally concerned about minute men firing from Bunker Hill on King George's troops, or of the shooting and pursuit of the King's forces at Concord and Lexington. Were those also traitors?
Your repeating old canards doesn't make them any more true than the first time you cited them. These thing are in dispute, and may always be, and your proclamation of them as ultimate truth is unconvincing.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by normbenign"Explain to me, how Ft. Sumpter wasn't a military base in a foreign country, there without permission of the host country?"
Explain to me, how Ft. Sumpter wasn't a military base in a foreign country, there without permission of the host country?
No one was harmed in the shelling of Sumpter, and the garrison was allowed to leave without incident, with the aid of the S. Carolinians. If you object to southerners firing on a Northern fort in their harbor, then are you equally ...[text shortened]... in dispute, and may always be, and your proclamation of them as ultimate truth is unconvincing.
Surely you have heard the answers to this, chiefly that the secession pronouncements were without effect in establishing a foreign state. You ought to be able to recite the answers yourself, by now. You should be an expert on the subject.
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by normbenignEasily.
Explain to me, how Ft. Sumpter wasn't a military base in a foreign country, there without permission of the host country?
No one was harmed in the shelling of Sumpter, and the garrison was allowed to leave without incident, with the aid of the S. Carolinians. If you object to southerners firing on a Northern fort in their harbor, then are you equally ...[text shortened]... in dispute, and may always be, and your proclamation of them as ultimate truth is unconvincing.
A) Ft. Sumter wasn't in a foreign country; it had never been part of South Carolina being a man made island;
B) Even pretending for the sake of argument that South Carolina was a foreign country, it had given permission for Ft. Sumter to be built where it was in the 1820s.
No one was killed at Ft. Sumter but that was not for lack of trying; over 3,000 shells were fired at the fort.http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter
One shell would have been sufficient to meet the Constitutional requirement for treason.
Your continued BS isn't very convincing either.
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by normbenignI now unilaterally declare all US army bases to be on my territory.
Explain to me, how Ft. Sumpter wasn't a military base in a foreign country, there without permission of the host country?
No one was harmed in the shelling of Sumpter, and the garrison was allowed to leave without incident, with the aid of the S. Carolinians. If you object to southerners firing on a Northern fort in their harbor, then are you equally ...[text shortened]... in dispute, and may always be, and your proclamation of them as ultimate truth is unconvincing.
Do I have good justification in attacking them, in your opinion?
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by joe beyserMost of us believe in national sovereignty, to the extent that the Constitution grants it, as well as to State and local sovereignty in proper ratio. What suffers most, I fear, is individual sovereignty, and with it personal responsibility.
Amazing how so many people hate the government but love their country. Too many people believe in national sovereignty which puts them at odds with the NWO.
Everyone loves government when it provides some benefit to them personally. They love it when someone else pays the bills. But eventually, the regulations and restrictions hit home, the tax bill comes due, and government somehow isn't as friendly as it was perceived when the goodies were promised.
Example: Everyone in Flint, MI loved government as long it was the entity that provided a welfare check, or tax abatement, but when it became the entity that gave them bad drinking water, it became the enemy.
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOnly if you are the sovereign leader of that country. As a citizen, you would certainly be within your rights, and duty to advocate for such actions. I would want US military bases out of my country, but others in that country may have differing opinions.
I now unilaterally declare all US army bases to be on my territory.
Do I have good justification in attacking them, in your opinion?
01 Feb 16
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaI once read an article about professions that had the most psychopaths. The top two professions were:
Least trusted professions:
10. Business Executives
9. State Governors
8. Lawyers
7. Insurance Salespeople
6. Senators
5. HMO Managers
4. Stockbrokers
3. Advertising Executives
2. Members of Congress
1. Car Salespeople
This is just one poll, you'll be hard pressed to find a survey that does not have a scattering of pollies in ...[text shortened]... on the insurance salespeople.
Edit: The poll in the Telegraph has politicians at the bottom.
1. Lawyers
2. Those in media.
Think about it, both those in law and the media are out there trying to sell stories in order to make money. Truth in no way benefits them unless truth sensationalizes a story or wins them a court case. Otherwise, they are left to fabricate and twist the truth in order to sell soap.
Just look what lawyers have done to this country. It's disgusting.