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.

On 3/2/2010 10:24 PM, Aratzio wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:04:08 -0500, in the land of alt.impeach.bush,
> Occam’s Razor got double secret probation
> for writing:
>
>> On 3/2/2010 9:51 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:26:54 -0500, in the land of alt.impeach.bush,
>>> Occam’s Razor got double secret probation
>>> for writing:
>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2010 3:59 PM, The PHANTOM wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 1, 9:53 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 1, 8:26 pm, Harold Burton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mar 1, 6:25 pm, Tab182 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Well now that New York has cleared ACORN of ALL CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
>>>>>>>>> after finally looking at the unedited video shot by the sniveling
>>>>>>>>> little Rightard Criminal O’keefe (Who the GOP hired to smear ACORN)
>>>>>>>>> maybe ACORN should now turn around and sue the GOP for defamation of
>>>>>>>>> character?
>>>>>>>>> Hell if nothing else it would be worth it to get all them Rightard
>>>>>>>>> Criminals under oath when they go thru all that pretrail crap!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> lets hope they take the liars to court, and clean house like what has
>>>>>>>> been done to other criminal gangs like…
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> …Acorn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Snicker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> snicker, acorn has not been convicted of anything, but the
>>>>>> conservative KKK has:)- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> – Show quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> So you’re saying you don’t have a problem with ACORN giving advice to
>>>>> human traffickers and pimps on how to smuggle underage latin females
>>>>> into the country to be used as sex slaves and funded by the
>>>>> taxpayer’s?? HUH??
>>>>
>>>> Why is it that the Democrats want to prosecute Lawyers that gave some
>>>> advice to Bush and yet these *Government FUNDED* “Community Organizers”
>>>> obviously tell people *ON VIDEO* how to evade the laws and outright
>>>> break the law and the Democrats and Attorney Generals are happy to
>>>> ignore it.
>>>>
>>>> It does seem like the law isn’t being equally enforced.
>>>
>>> What law was broken, specifically.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly, what law did Bush’s advisers break?
>
> Nice avoidance of the question. You claimed “outright break the law”.
> So which law did they break? Cmon, you can back up your statement with
> facts about which laws were broken on a video that was edited for
> content?
>
>>
>>> Here is another hint: The Acorn employees are not lawyers.
>>
>> the law is still the law.
>>
> So you think a dubbed and edited video is exactly the same as writing
> legal memos whose sole requirement was to evade US law and
> International treaties?
>
> Really? Those are the same in your world?

Since you put it that way… YES they sound more alike than I had first
thought, when you added international treaties I instantly thought about
*ACORN trafficking internationally in child sex* slaves from Ecuador
like they said on the video.

It’s more alike than I had even first thought.

I would think that the Ecuadorian people and their Government would be
in the streets demanding that ACORN be prosecuted since the Stolen
Children to be Sex slaves sold as prostitutes were from their country
and I’m sure we have some reciprocal prosecution or extradition treaty.

The Ecuadorians are being very passive, America would have swooped in
and Kidnapped the co conspirators like WE did with Manuel Noriega and
Mohammad Shake Khalid who were also just talking about committing crimes
in a foreign country “namely the USA”.

Maybe Ecuadorian Seals will swoop in and kidnap those ACORN criminals to
stand trial in Ecuador….. If Ecuador would at least make some veiled
threats to that end, maybe the incriminated ACORN workers could live in
fear of being brought to justice.

On 2/23/2010 3:29 AM, Joe Cummings wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 2/21/2010 3:11 PM, SkyEyes wrote:
>>> On Feb 21, 11:10 am, Beam Me Up Scotty >> dog.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/20/2010 7:02 AM, Joe Cummings wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Poetic Justice wrote:
>>>>>> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 8, 7:19 pm, Poetic Justice >>>>>> Dog….@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8 Feb, 05:59, Poetic Justice >>>>>>>> Dog….@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Define fair? If you do a days work and you are paid for a half
>>>>>>>> day, is
>>>>>>>> that fair?
>>>>>>> A fair society is one in which I pay more than the next person in
>>>>>>> tax
>>>>>>> if I earn more or have more unearned wealth. Now the overall
>>>>>>> ratio of
>>>>>>> what I pay to my income is a separate issue, since the overall tax
>>>>>>> burden may be large or small. If you are talking about someone
>>>>>>> losing
>>>>>>> 50% or more of their gross earnings in tax, you are clearly a
>>>>>>> fool….
>>>>>> Do you use more of the services offered by the society because you
>>>>>> earned more money?
>>>>>> If you work, sleep, breath, eat, drink, equal and use equal services,
>>>>>> the only difference is the money you accumulated, why is the
>>>>>> accumulation of money the problem?
>>>>>> Should we start to hand out Livers like you do wealth? Should your
>>>>>> Government be able to take parts from healthy people at the point
>>>>>> of a
>>>>>> gun(as they do taxes) and give them to people that need them, just as
>>>>>> you use “Progressive taxing” to secure equality, you can have
>>>>>> *PROGRESSIVE HEALTH CARE*
>>>>>> If the Nation has *National Wealth* that we all own, we must also
>>>>>> have a
>>>>>> *National health* that belongs to us all. We can’t let the
>>>>>> unhealthiest
>>>>>> Americans suffer, so we will need to evaluate everyone’s health and
>>>>>> fleece the healthy of their health and redistribute that good
>>>>>> health to
>>>>>> the poorest of health. It’s the Liberal thing to do.
>>>>>> Now it won’t matter what economic strata someone is in, the
>>>>>> government
>>>>>> will be able to tax your body parts away from you…. a poor
>>>>>> person will
>>>>>> be forced to give their eyeball to the government who will give it to
>>>>>> someone less fortunate that needs an eyeball, even if it is Bill
>>>>>> Gates
>>>>>> that needs the eyeball, of course the government will cover all the
>>>>>> expenses. Now The poor person and Bill Gates will once again be
>>>>>> equal
>>>>>> with just one good eye.
>>>>>> It’s fair….
>>>>> In Europe, there are universal health services.
>>>>> I think it is a very Christian policy to have such care. Are our
>>>>> Christian friends in the US
>>>>> in favour of a universal health service or not?
>>>>> I think that the founder of their religion got into trouble for
>>>>> healing
>>>>> the sick (for free)
>>>>> Where does he think Jesus went wrong?
>>>>> Joe Cummings
>>>> Jesus didn’t take/steal from one person to give to another, Christ used
>>>> what was given or what he created…. Stealing is stealing and you
>>>> think Christ was a thief?
>>> The mythological character Jesus was a socialist, pretty much.
>>>
>>> Matthew 5:40 (King James Version)
>>>
>>> “And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let
>>> him have thy cloak also.”
>>>
>>> Luke 6:29 (King James Version)
>>>
>>> “And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the
>>> other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat
>>> also.”
>>>
>>> Matthew 25
>>> 34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye
>>> blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
>>> foundation of the world:
>>>
>>> 35For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye
>>> gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
>>>
>>> 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in
>>> prison, and ye came unto me.
>>>
>>> 37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee
>>> an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
>>>
>>> 38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and
>>> clothed thee?
>>>
>>> 39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
>>>
>>> 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you,
>>> Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my
>>> brethren, ye have done it unto me.
>>>
>>> 41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me,
>>> ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his
>>> angels:
>>>
>>> 42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye
>>> gave me no drink:
>>>
>>> 43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me
>>> not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
>>>
>>> 44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an
>>> hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison,
>>> and did not minister unto thee?
>>>
>>> 45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch
>>> as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.”
>>>
>>> The schadenfreude that I experience when a “christian” tries to weasel
>>> out of health care reform (always on the basis of “Why should *I* have
>>> to pay for your health care?”) is beyond bitter. Any person who
>>> claims to be a follower of Jesus and who does *not* support Universal
>>> Health Care is nothing but a hypocrite, and/or has never actually
>>> *read* the bible.
>>>
>>> And lastly:
>>>>> 1 Timothy 6:10 (King James Version)
>>>
>>> “For the ***love of money*** is the root of all evil: which while
>>> some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced
>>> themselves through with many sorrows.” [Emphasis mine]
>>>
>>> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
>>> skyeyes nine at cox dot net
>>>
>> Interesting but *NOT* one thing that shows Jesus stole from one to give
>> to another. He preached to be giving but that is what we call being
>> charitable.
>>
> I (think you’ve been more than adequately answered on your “tax is
> theft” mantra.

Yes and you have shown me to be correct. You have shown no place in the
constitution that allows for congress to give money to “the people” or
to take over MY personal health care.

> Let me just deal with health. You’ve been told most of your adult life
> that “public bad,,
> inefficient, private good, efficient.”

Not…. I “see” the difference(the lines) (the dirt) (the government
indifference) (The Limited service) between public and private.

I know you want me to believe you and *NOT* my lying eyes. You get what
you pay for there is no free ride.

> Yet public health (Medicare) administrative costs are 6% of total costs
> as compared to
> up to 30% in the free market insurance companies. How come?????

3% is profit for the stock holders, a large amount is Government
regulations that your government exempts itself from and then there is
the Lawyers that sue insurance but can’t sue the Government so insurance
spend a lot on Lawyers. Democrat/Socialists won’t allow law suit reforms.

Insurance chases Fraud and waste while government ignores the fraud and
waste? No overhead costs if you ignore it. Because insurance track down
the thieves and it costs money and lawyers to do that. Your government
numbers are fiction.

medicare only pays 75% of the bills.
The government off sets the cost of more people to deal with the
bureaucracy to the private doctors office. The government creates more
rules, regulations and work for the private sector by creating unfunded
mandates.

> Some parts of the US system are very good, but overall, the comparison
> with Europe is
> not very flattering.

We don’t need to be like Europe, if you like Europe then don’t let us
stop you from seeking your Utopian lifestyle there. Enjoy their
lifestyle. It’s you *Democrats that tell us diversity* and
*multiculturalism* *is a wonderful and great thing* , all the while you
pass government mandates like *National* health care that will destroy
our unique lifestyle…. You are all hypocrites and liars. You want a

*NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND NATIONAL LAW TO HOMOGENIZE US ALL*

> For one thing, the US health system doesn’t cover all the citizens, and
> for another, it costs
> 13.9 % of GNP

It is the GNP. Under the government control it ceases to be GNP. Why
would I mind spending on myself to keep myself at a level of health that
makes me happy? I do the same when I buy a TV or buy a Lobster or crab
dinner… If I want more I buy more. If I need more money I earn more
money by taking bigger risks.

> Here in France it covers all the citizens and it costs 9.5% of GNP.

And you don’t get the service. Your GDP is near zero and inside the
margin of error when on the positive side, your unemployment and GDP
show the indifference you have when it comes to being successful. The
French are taxed at levels that I don’t want…. I’d rather pay more to
a private supplier than to be taxed at gun point to provide it for “free”.

I don’t want people to just sit around and expect others to do
everything for them. People can work for what they get.

> In the UK it covers all citizens and it costs 7.6% of GNP;

Once again their GDP isn’t anything to brag about…. Neither is their
health care. What happens if the government fails all your eggs are in
one basket? Ever hear of diversification?

> In the US, Egoism rules and you have high costs and incomplete cover.

And we enjoy it. It’s called freedom.

© 2010 OutSourcedNews Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha