OutSourcedNews

On 3/5/2010 3:13 AM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
> On Mar 2, 6:13 am, Beam Me Up Scotty dog.com> wrote:
>> On 3/2/2010 7:58 AM, hal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 06:29:12 -0600, “SaPeIsMa”
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> “hal” wrote in messagenews:4b8c7bd7.48349234@news.newsguy.com…
>>>>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:45:02 -0800 (PST), “edi…@netpath.net”
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Dream on if you think “Sweden in America” is the voters’ choice. With
>>>>>> unemployment and foreclosures so high after two years of a Democrat
>>>>>> House, a Democrat Senate, and a Democrat president as of Election Day,
>>>>>> who do you think the angry masses are going to take it out on?
>>
>>>>> The people who cause this mess: George Bush
>>
>>>> You can get professional help for that BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)
>>>> It’s not going to go away on it’s own even though you’ve voted for Obambi.
>>
>>> It’s not going away until our economic problems go away, and like it
>>> took FDR several years to fix the problems given to this country by
>>> Hoover and his do nothing conservative cronies, it is going to take
>>> Obama much more than a year or two to fix all the problems given to us
>>> by this last batch of conservative criminals. Sorry if conservative
>>> criminal is redundant.
>>
>> FDR made it last for nearly 10 years…. The Government has done it
>> again, I’ll suggest that this is also being dragged out by government.
>>
>
> Then surely you can produce a cite showing the USA had 25%
> unemployment in 1943.

1929 - 1939 is 10 years…. the war in Europe began in 1939

During the 1939 ? 1942 period, the UK and Russia depleted much of their
gold stock in purchases of munitions and weaponry on a *cash and carry*
basis from the U.S. and other nations.

The War rescued FDR and the Economy from continued Stagnation and lack
luster performance….. Socialism won’t fix Capitalism.

*The problem is the farther we drift from the Constitution* the *worse*
*things* *get*. We need to get back to the constitution and away from
Social Justice and other unconstitutional ideology.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Next Crash after Bush’s>>OR<<Obama; the President that never was.
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:52:57 -0500
From: Beam Me Up Scotty

On 3/3/2010 4:29 PM, God’sLittleAnus wrote:
> Shall we be pro-active and call the next financial debacle “The Great
> Bush Depression Echo”?

Since This is Bush’s 3rd term, go for it…. when you read the history
books you won’t even know Obama was ever President.

According to the Obama side, everything is Bush’s fault which means
Obama hasn’t done anything.

*Obama; the President that never was*

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: surrender your supplies to authorities during a disaster>>OR<<
Are you redistributing “smart” or are you redistributing “stupidity”
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:45:45 -0500
From: Occam’s Razor

> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:56:14 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
> wrote:
>
>> With the recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, it has given the
>> world…and your neighbors…a refresher course into what happens when
>> the thin veil of society breaks down.
>>
>> Along with the related question of firearms currently being discussed,
>> one has to consider how the breakdown of society will affect you and
>> your supplies. If you are the only one on the block hydrated, well
>> fed, lights on at night..well it doesn’t take anyone long to figure
>> out that you have supplies…including the authorities.
>>
>> So if a disaster occurred where you live where society breaks down,
>> would
>> you surrender your resources (water, food, fuel, etc.) to an
>> authorities if asked to?

>>
>>
>> Why or why not?

Don’t all the people have the same opportunity to plan for it right now,
so if I chose to plan for “MY” survival, how does that become the
collectives resource, shouldn’t other individuals or the “Collective”
have planned for disaster?

Are you trying to redistribute “smart” or are you redistributing
“stupidity”?

On 3/3/2010 11:25 AM, Joe Steel wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote in
> news:4b8d8e8f$0$11422$ec3e2dad@unlimited.usenetmonster.com:
>
>> On 3/2/2010 3:47 PM, Joe Steel wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The People are sovereign. Being sovereign means you never have to
>>> say “May I.” The People may do what they wish.
>>>
>> I didn’t get that part in my copy of the constitution, send me a copy
>> of yours…. I don’t think you are so stupid as to tell me something
>> you have no written copy of.
>>
>
> When James Madison knew he would be involved in writing the Constitution,
> he asked his friend Thomas Jefferson, US ambassador to France, to send
> him the latest European works on government. Among the work he received
> almost certainly was “The Social Contract” by Jean Jacques Rousseau. It
> includes this:
>
> “At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting
> party, this act of association creates a moral and collective body,
> composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving
> from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This
> public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took
> the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it
> is called by its members State when passive. Sovereign when active, and
> Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in
> it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called
> citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under
> the laws of the State. But these terms are often confused and taken one
> for another: it is enough to know how to distinguish them when they are
> being used with precision.

” *Those* who are associated in it take collectively the name of people,”

So when you say *the people* it means *those* within the group called
the people.

I would say they are individuals. But when described as *the people*
are not just “one” as the “States” are not just one, but each has the
same individual rights and are collectively no different. Two States
have no more power than one, two people have no more power than one, we
are equal, “the people” are equal to any one member, no more or less.

I can *NOT* do as I wish…. and as *the people* I have a constitution
that must be considered as to whether it is a power given in it to the
Federal government the States or the people. If it is a right for the
people, then each and every individual has that right it’s not a
collective right only usable when all come together as the people. To
start with, we never really come together to agree on anything as the
people, that is why we elect government representatives. We can’t be
sovereign as the people because we are never acting as one, but as
government we are sovereign because we can act as one.

James Madison called people Sovereign when active or *voting*

“composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes”

When you vote you exercise a power just as the States have elected
people that act having supreme, independent authority over a territory
as does the Federal Government.

We are suppose to be *part* of the sovereign power but…
*NOT THE sovereign power* . We each vote and collectively(the people)
our votes are sovereign having supreme, independent authority over a
territory.

But that’s just How I read that. That was good stuff thanks and maybe
we read it a little different but I always see the constitution as
separating power, power is never centralized in the constitution from
all I have read.