Defending the truth

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Defending the truth

Words mean things. You may rearrange them and distort their meaning with synonyms but, when you return to the original its clarity is true. The U. S. Constitution is not law but a framework on which to build it. For the federal authority, that framework is contained in Article 1 Section 8. Article 9 describes the limits on those foreign persons that may be admitted to come under the pact the framers created. The intent of that pact, as is clear, was an attempt, not to govern, but how they would join together to protect themselves and establish some uniformity among 13 sovereign entities so they would not go their separate ways. Article 10 comes the closest to law in that it prohibits the States from taxing each other and if they disobey, the punishment is forfeiture of their gains. This was included, because it was a practice of some of the States with seaports to charge duties on articles intended for other states but forced to pass through. Remember, land transport was mostly unavailable because there were no roads and large quantities of goods could only be shipped by sea animist of the developed seaports were in the north. The pact contained a fatal flaw that will eventually lead to its undoing and a clause intended not to eliminate it but, to mitigate its impact. It added a safety valve provision in the event of total failure.

The pact required the States to accept only gold or silver in payment of debts. This essentially killed the barter economy that most of the country used in its commerce, obviating the need for gold or silver of which there was little, save that brought over from England. The federal authority retained to itself the ability to determine the value of gold and silver or any other currency being used for world commerce. The safety valve was the provision that the federal authority was absolutely restricted to taxation as a means to pay for its services. It is why borrowing was included as a separate power and intended, as were the States, to pay for services rendered until tax revenue could be received. It is a facet of a mercantile economy that is not necessary in a barter economy where equal exchange is instantaneous. Needless to say your Congress has completely ignored the requirement to tax to pay for its services and has greatly expanded the services it provides and was limited to those contained in Article 1 Section 8.

It has been my contention that nearly every problem we has as a society has been created then exacerbated by unconstitutional activity of the government in every branch. The proof lies in the manner that the Supreme Court uses to declare certain acts legal, not by referring to the original charter of limitations, but previous actions the court has sanctioned when it was not in their power to do so. If you read the first acts of the Congress you will se where the court took upon itself the power to decide what is law when the Constitution gave it only the power to settle disputes. The authority to decide constitutionality was given the President alone and an override by the Congress negated it.

There are those on this blog who slander, demean and criticize but who have yet to cite and error or rebut my discovery of the truth with a truth of their own.

Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 4 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
This is a FORUM not a BLOG !

This is a FORUM not a BLOG !

A truth well established in AMG history .

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 9 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Maybe one of these days he'll

Maybe one of these days he'll decide to "go after the truth" on some issue that actually results in actionable information.

Till then, the truth about how many fairies will fit on the end of a male blueberry's proboscis will be unknown to all but the wisest.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 9 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
PS: "Defending the truth?"

PS: "Defending the truth?"

Who is attacking the truth?

Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 4 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Ah the court was given the

Ah, the court was given the power to settle disputes , that arise between actions of the legislative and executive branches and the constitution !

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Bruce:If you took the time to

Bruce:If you took the time to actually read the Constitution Article 10 I believe defines the parties in dispute over which the Court has jurisdiction and disputes between the Executive branch and the Congress are not one of them.

The very first Congress passed the Judiciary Act giving the Court the power to decide whether Congress exceeded its charter which is a power given only to the President. The Congress can override that veto by a two thirds vote in both houses. The President as no further say, other than not enforce the law for which the Congress can then impeach him. The Supreme Court had no say in the matter until the Congress, unlawfully gave them that power with the Judiciary Act which in part was beyond the powers granted to the Congress.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Mel: YOU, by denying it and

Mel: YOU, by denying it and trying to intimidate others into following by demeaning the messenger.

Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 4 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
pmconusa

pmconusa
If you took the time to think you would find executive does things and the congress enacts laws the only two
things they do. Hence the court deals with related conflicts between these and the constitution.

Perusal you assume I didn't read document when due to my occupation I had extensive training and education on it.
Your defense is always one is ( fill in any lacking ) that justifies your superior knowledge and judgement which is your problem.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 9 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
"Mel: YOU, by denying it and

"Mel: YOU, by denying it and trying to intimidate others"

If this is an exemplar of your critical reading skills, all I can say is I am rendered aghast. Your mission is to declare yourself the way and the truth and the light, and to attack anyone who takes issue. And you still can't comprehend that the lack of exaltation you receive on this forum has much more to do with your condescension and disposition than your content.

Apparently, unless an AMG reader responds to you with words like "oh, master, your flawless thinking and reasoning are a light unto the benighted, for which we bow down in gratitude, and I wish to order ten copies of each of your books," that reader is attacking the truth.

OMG is all I can say. I can only imagine what having you as an instructor at MIT must have been like.

Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 4 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
pmconusa

pmconusa
Once again you are wrong, Mel doesn't have to try to get others to demean you,you do it quite well yourself.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Where?

Where?

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 9 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Yo, pmcon. When I posted the

Yo, pmcon. When I posted the passage below on another thread pointing out a specific conundrum in one of your proclamations, you gave it a good leaving alone. So here's another chance for you to highlight my tendency to attack and drive others away, specifically by responding to the comment offered, instead of running and hiding from it, and eventually resorting to the progressive's typical ploy of demonization.
===================================================
I often find you making statements in an essay that on first read conflict with each other. I have no interest in rereading it multiple times to reach a final decision.

For example, in the subject DACA pronouncement you recently handed down:

The federal government’s actions, first to limit migration by numbers and by country of origin was a violation of the power given the Congress. Its failure to enforce its own illegal acts has allowed millions to not only enter the country but to remain here.

The above is sort of a head-spinner; a non-sequitur.

First, the actions taken violated the Constitution. But then it failed to enforce its illegal actions. The net resulting in millions allowed to enter the country and stay. (So you appear to say.)

Then you close with this in the last paragraph:

This whole mess would have been avoided if the government followed the Constitution in the first place.

I don't know what you weren't trying to say, but you didn't do a very good job of it. At least to those with only a Rutgers education and none of the other credentials that might not have allowed me to discern the difference between what you didn't say, weren't saying, and how it ends up not saying something different in your conclusion.
==================================================
We await your clarification, professor.

Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 4 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Overtime you post a response

Everytime you post a response to others' posts.

You refuse to get it and IMO ( something that the use of would ease the problem in your responses)but might impact status of your being the one as
the only truth truth.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Why do you both continue to

Why do you both continue to read and reply to my stuff when all you really want to do is shut me up. Is my blather so offensive that you must censor it because others haven't the good sense to recognize some thing as nonsensical and decide for themselves? They don't seem to need you to tell them and the the fact my stuff gets quite a few hits tells me they are not swayed by the likes of you.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 9 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
I didn't realize your PhD

I didn't realize your PhD included such sweeping expertise.

A few of us have been trying in any number of ways to point out to you that among other things, your talking down to everyone is an instant turn-off. And that your rhetorical dissonances get in the way of serious consideration of your theses. Add to that the "Rule 3: if in doubt, see Rule 1" approach hasn't exactly been stimulating lively discussion or debate. Rule 1, of course, is "If you don't believe me, I'm right and you're not because I know the truth and you don't."

You'd be a real hit on the campuses of today.

If in fact it did, your only responses would be a) "thanks for agreeing with me completely" or b) "you're out to get me and turn people against me."

When given an example of your inscrutable assertions, you simply cast the submission aside.

You no more want an open lively discussion and challenge to your writings than Antifa wants to have tea and crumpets with those with whom they disagree.

Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 4 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Answer : Yes it is offensive.

Answer : Yes it is offensive.
Because of your talking down etc. that has been pointed out to you numerous times.
Never have I or anyone else suggested you go away. Stop insulting fellow members is just a
simple solution to your problem.

You want an example.
Your assumption that I haven't read ( If I had taken time) Constitution is offensive to me. Given that I worked
in a profession that was impacted by numerous court decisions on a daily basis and trained others in policies and procedure
utilization of same on job.

I do not know( probably a indicator of my insufficient knowledge ) how anyone can be so oblivious to what has been explained tot hem numerous times.
The non response of others is more than likely recognition of the futility of attempting to deal with you.
It is difficult when one is presented a thesis that is admitted to be unworkable etc. by the author( you) and expecting much from others. Maybe at least two people try to get you to see the point. You beg for the results you express concern over and accuse others and there motives. Also, try to have some fun here,your not fun.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 9 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
You will note that he tends

You will note that he tends to consider that lack of challenge to his posts is tacit recognition of his inerrancy and unique connection to the inner sanctum of cosmic truth.

Which must mean, I suppose, that lack of sales of his book affirms the unimpeachable brilliance and insights contained there-in.

If you don't believe me, you could look it up. And when you don't, do buy his book, or it will be a stain on his perfect record.

Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 4 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Mel

delete

Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 4 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Mel

Mel
You know with few exceptions most who disagree do so without nastiness ,but those who do , they are less objectionable than the divine holder of the truth !
I assume this all started when he found out how many kcals are in a can of dog food !

Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 4 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Mel

delete

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
The amount of kcals in dog

The amount of kcals in dog food is printed on the label. It is not there for the dogs to read. Have you noticed that you two are the only ones who have posted on this thread?

Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 4 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Yes, and numerous times have

Yes, and numerous times have explained it to you .
We care enough, to others it appears you are irrelevant !

Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
"Mel: YOU, by denying it and

"Mel: YOU, by denying it and trying to intimidate others into following by demeaning the messenger."

If Mel is trying to "deny it and intimidate others into following" (he isn't, btw) he has been singularly ineffective, since you keep posting arrant nonsense.

Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 4 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Of course that earns one:

Of course that earns one:
A drum roll and rimshot!

Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
Oh, and the "persecuted

Oh, and the "persecuted martyr and unsung Hero for Truth" line is getting well past its expiration date. The simple fact is that you're tedious, unable to respond to criticism, equally unable to actually have a conversation, and people look at you now as a self-parody. I look at your threads because I'm entertained by Mel and Bruce's responses to you, and your cartoonish attempts to respond to them.

Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 4 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Wow a double play Vikingstar.

Wow a double play Vikingstar.
The first in AMG DRRS history !

Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 4 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Wow a double play Vikingstar.

delete

Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 4 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Wow a double play Vikingstar.

deleted

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
I will respond to critics

I will respond to critics when I get a response that challenges my theories with theories of their own. You cannot debate diatribes.

Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
"I will respond to critics

"I will respond to critics when I get a response that challenges my theories with theories of their own. You cannot debate diatribes."

...which is, oddly enough, exactly the place we have found ourselves in every time you post. Your "theories" are diatribes.

Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 4 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
But given the pending

But given the pending celebration of " indigenous peoples day" I thank pmconusa for his recognition of the
diaTRIBE !

Pages

Log in to post comments