|
Termyn8or -> RE: Inter = Intra (7/16/2007 11:07:00 AM)
|
Thanks for shitting in my cheerios again Real. No offense though, someone's got to do it. I never even hoped to make it through a day without thinking about this fucked up situation.
Personally, I think the proper defense would have won the case, although you can never be sure. I think they focussed on the wheat not being in commerce and that was the mistake. I think they should've focussed on the fact that he was not operating in commerce.
This could get complicated, especially if we was engaged in the business of selling wheat grown on other tracts of land, but I thinik it could still be pulled off.
"That wheat would never go to market, no matter how high the price, and I would not buy, rather than grow that wheat no matter how low the price got. That is for personal consumption, and to say it is illegal you could then say my tomato garden is illegal, the workshop in my basement, my tools. By extension you could deem any labor I perform for myself can be illegal, and that I must pay someone else to do it, and by reason of that, that I must only work when I am paid and therefore taxed. This is totally repugnant on it's face."
Of course I would bid them to lock up the wheat, and if they do that they must pay for it or they are taking without just compensation. And then that they themselves would be the ones who ultimately placed my personal wheat into their precious commerce.
Anyone know where I can get a fake law license ? lol.
This is yet one more of those historical atrocities that get left out of the school books. And yes, the framers of the Constitution were people of stature. As such, as much as they gave, tried to give, or wanted to appear to give to The People in the way of rights, it would be foolish to think that intelligent Men would go against their own best interests. Even with the best of intentions, everybody still looks out for number one first.
Actually Real et alii, it got bad long before the 1940s. We are talking pre civil war. Let's touch on the civil war for a moment hmmmm ? Let's see here, there are a bunch of states that no longer wish to be states. Why ?
And then, as usual, subsequent events seem to indicate that the wrong side won. As usual, war debts were incurred. What if the south would've won ? Some southern states had already abolished slavery (FL comes to mind first). And would they have formed a true Confederate union ? Anyone who knows, knows that slavery was not the main impetus for the conflict. There was alot more going on.
Southerners weren't taking too kindly to tariffs and taxes, and they weren't too crazy about the insidious subtle changes in the way the currency was regulated. They saw certain actions of the government as the same damn thing we were trying to get away from. But they lost.
And after the war, between carpetbaggers and traitors in government they caused a massive redistribution of wealth. This through foreclosures and so forth, among other methods. Of course there is nothing unusual about this either.
The carpetbaggers and their ilk made necessary the formation of the now totally defunct Ku Klux Klan. In the beginning they weren't any more racist than anyone else, they were mainly after crooked judges, sherriffs, other politicians, and few of them were Black. How they started going after Black people is beyond me. OK, maybe a few of them got off on some crimes in courts that were biased, but that doesnt account for them becoming as racist as they did. The root of the problem was still the courts, as was the target of the original KKK. But what happened happened.
Now the supposed Klansmen of today are not. Not at all. It is now a bunch of bigots who's main objective seems to be to insult. If they are out to prove the superiority of the White race they are falling flat on their face.
So much for that. It boils down to this, the courts are against us. The government believes that they own every fucking blade of grass, and it is starting to look like they mean on the entire planet. Is this not the portent of Revelations ?
I have no deity, but I do not deny the wisdom of the Christian Bible. I do not believe it is gospel, but I do not believe it was all wrong. I've read Revelations more than once, in a plain text Bible. The symbolism is hard to grasp, and this 144,000 shit is not for me. But it seems to depict the author's insight into the future, possibly based on very good insight and intellect along with life happenings, or may truly have been inspired by something other than normal.
So I don't know if I am really going in the direction the OP wanted. But it did seem like more of a historical reference, and I believe the root of the problem lies farther back in time.
The modern banking system is a large part of the problem. It seems you are operating in commerce when you take a shit. Here's a name for ya - Roger B. Taney. Four predecessors had refused to carry out the treasonous orders of the President of the US. He followed orders and removed the gold from the US bank. He was rewarded with a lifetime job, a judgeship. He is best known for the Dred Scott decision.
I don't think I've really flown off the subject too much. Because the future cannot influence the past, to find reasons for happenings we need to go farther back. It might stink to the core.
I have postulated before that it is possible the England purposely let the rebels win the revolutionary war. Now see, I cannot say it is true, but I can say it is possible. Facts are extant, but none prove the theory. The rebels used guerrila tactics, why couldn't the English ? Add to that the cost of policing the colonies and the difficulty in travel and communications, and you can see it is possible.
England had too many people and sent a bunch of them here, by one way or the other. They didn't want them back. If they were intelligent leaders they would figure this thing would only be profitable for so long. The Boston Tea Party made it clear that profits were about to drop. What would you do ?
All of this only proves that it is possible, and I wouldn't even say probable at this point. Not without more facts. But if it is true, that means this whole thing is rotten to the core.
Perhaps it is better left unproven ?
T
|
|
|
|
