RE: Transparency? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Real0ne -> RE: Transparency? (6/10/2013 10:40:24 PM)

well guess what happens when you waltz into court without any documents to prove your claim?

Now you want to infer that the total paper trail that would prove the people actually voted to create the states, for all 50 states just magically vaporized.

and your gonna tell da judge well judge it just is because it is all the while your butt is bounced out the door.

I told you if you have prrof that statehood was in fact voted upon by the inhabitants sogotp and post it. everything else you posted is nothing more than belches and beer farts.




tazzygirl -> RE: Transparency? (6/10/2013 10:48:16 PM)

Nope. Im not a historian, Im not inferring anything

quote:

Now you want to infer that the total paper trail that would prove the people actually voted to create the states, for all 50 states just magically vaporized.


Wow, we had 50 states back then? Why wasnt I taught that?

According to your research, which states didnt ratify it?

Oh, and a follow up question... where do you get the belief that the populace had to ratify the constitution by a majority of popular vote?




Real0ne -> RE: Transparency? (6/10/2013 10:56:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Nope. Im not a historian, Im not inferring anything

quote:

Now you want to infer that the total paper trail that would prove the people actually voted to create the states, for all 50 states just magically vaporized.


Wow, we had 50 states back then? Why wasnt I taught that?

According to your research, which states didnt ratify it?



Nice gutter play.

I did not and never did say "ratify", I said

"no referendums were voted upon in ANY state by the inhabitants to create the states" Ron.

Stop fabricating shit, you have nothing, you know you have nothing yet you persist in this foolishness.




tazzygirl -> RE: Transparency? (6/10/2013 10:59:43 PM)

quote:

"no referendums were voted upon in ANY state by the inhabitants to create the states"


Where do you get the belief "referendums" were required?




Real0ne -> RE: Transparency? (6/10/2013 11:04:40 PM)

I forgot they have crystal balls.




tazzygirl -> RE: Transparency? (6/10/2013 11:05:46 PM)

Where, R0? Seriously. Where did you get that from? Im sure with all your knowledge and your background you can show me the requirement for a referendum such as you are posting about.




tazzygirl -> RE: Transparency? (6/10/2013 11:12:50 PM)

Its late and Im tired. Just post your response and I will pick this back up in the morning. Im sure by then you can show me the links to all the states and when they required a referendum for ratification of constitutions. [;)]

Good night.




Real0ne -> RE: Transparency? (6/10/2013 11:18:35 PM)

For shit sake.

Show me where a government created by the consent of the people for ourselves can be created without a vote or some paper trail demonstrating said consent.
Otherwise its an unconscionable contract unless you think you can "lawfully" create a government for everyone and shove it up their asses.
Last time I checked that is not consent.
You simply have no port in this storm, no rock to hide under.
Unless of course you want to talk about brass tacks and claim that the government applies only to those IN government in which case you are getting warmer.




Real0ne -> RE: Transparency? (6/10/2013 11:23:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Its late and Im tired. Just post your response and I will pick this back up in the morning. Im sure by then you can show me the links to all the states and when they required a referendum for ratification of constitutions. [;)]

Good night.


and if you are going to start shitting on the discussion and changing the context of what is being discussed to ratification I am done. Either you keep it within my claim or talk to the fucking hand.




JeffBC -> RE: Transparency? (6/11/2013 12:41:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

So you are saying we have to vote on each and every law as a country.

Not at all. But I have spent my entire adult life hearing people complain about the choices they were given to vote for -- lesser of two evils, etc. I have seen politicians work strongly against campaign finance reform. Gerrymandering and election rigging in general are open and commonplace and we won't allow outside observers. I look at who they consult with, dine with, socialize with and identify with and it is nobody I know... The elite being elite. They do not represent me. They represent the 0.01%

I think that winner take all election system is a real millstone.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Transparency? (6/11/2013 2:30:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
PRISM Program: Obama Administration Held 22 Briefings For Congress On Key FISA Law
Obama administration officials held 22 separate briefings or meetings for members of Congress on the law that has been used to justify the National Security Agency's controversial email monitoring program, according to data provided by a senior administration official.
According to the official, the sessions that took place over the course of 14 months starting in October 2011 touched on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act, which gives the attorney general and director of national intelligence the authority to gather intelligence on non-U.S. citizens for up to one year. Section 702 has been cited by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as the legal basis for the NSA's PRISM program, which has allowed the government to track email communication data.
The Guardian and The Washington Post revealed the existence of the PRISM program and another data-monitoring action last week. In defending PRISM from criticism, Clapper stated that U.S. citizens were not, and are not, targeted for the data dragnet. He and others have also insisted that Congress has had ample opportunity to review the program and provide feedback.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/prism-program-obama_n_3416973.html

This isn't what's before us, though. Great argument, but it doesn't apply.

Ummm....yes it is.


According to Tazzy's OP of a thread specifically about PRISM:
    quote:

    The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

    The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.
    The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers.
    Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.


I don't know how you get that this is gathering intel on "non-US citizens," which is what is allowed.




DomKen -> RE: Transparency? (6/11/2013 5:35:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
PRISM Program: Obama Administration Held 22 Briefings For Congress On Key FISA Law
Obama administration officials held 22 separate briefings or meetings for members of Congress on the law that has been used to justify the National Security Agency's controversial email monitoring program, according to data provided by a senior administration official.
According to the official, the sessions that took place over the course of 14 months starting in October 2011 touched on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act, which gives the attorney general and director of national intelligence the authority to gather intelligence on non-U.S. citizens for up to one year. Section 702 has been cited by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as the legal basis for the NSA's PRISM program, which has allowed the government to track email communication data.
The Guardian and The Washington Post revealed the existence of the PRISM program and another data-monitoring action last week. In defending PRISM from criticism, Clapper stated that U.S. citizens were not, and are not, targeted for the data dragnet. He and others have also insisted that Congress has had ample opportunity to review the program and provide feedback.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/prism-program-obama_n_3416973.html

This isn't what's before us, though. Great argument, but it doesn't apply.

Ummm....yes it is.


According to Tazzy's OP of a thread specifically about PRISM:
    quote:

    The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

    The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.
    The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers.
    Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.


I don't know how you get that this is gathering intel on "non-US citizens," which is what is allowed.


There are two possibilities, first that the NSA gathers all that data indiscriminately. Even if you used software to look for specific keywords it would still be an insurmountable problem there is just too much activity to deal with. (google reports that in 2011 there were 1.7 trillion searches). Second they target specific people or specific sorts of interactions, ip addresses are location specific so it would be fairly easy to monitor emails, chats etc. between people in the US and abroad. This is both feasible and legal.




Lucylastic -> RE: Transparency? (6/11/2013 5:59:15 AM)

http://openmedia.ca/secretspying?utm_source=130611eblast&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=secretspying


You probably saw on the news that a U.S. government agency has been caught secretly spying on the private communications of millions of people like you – through their cell phones,1 and through popular online services like Google, Facebook, and Skype.

Now, The Globe And Mail is reporting that Canada has its own agency operating in near-total secrecy that appears to be doing the same thing – recklessly collecting and storing our most sensitive private information in giant databases.

This is important: We need to know what sensitive private data is being collected and stored, and why. Call on the government to tell us the truth about their reckless online spying program immediately.

The key agency collecting our sensitive information is called the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC), which The Globe And Mail describes as an “ultrasecretive Canadian electronic-eavesdropping agency”.

According to online surveillance expert Ron Deibert, CSEC spying gives them the power to “pinpoint not only who you are, but with whom you meet, with what frequency and duration, and at which locations.”

Even the government’s own Privacy Commissioner’s Office has ominously stated, “we know very little specific information at this point, but we want to find out more.”




Real0ne -> RE: Transparency? (6/11/2013 8:57:37 AM)

the problem is that its like a politician getting up on a soap box yelling the n-word then later later apoligizing and expecting everything is ok.

Its not.

Once the fart is airborne it cant be put back.

they should be sued out of existence, and banned from EVER being recreated under any name or within any agency.





JeffBC -> RE: Transparency? (6/11/2013 10:04:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
http://openmedia.ca/secretspying?utm_source=130611eblast&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=secretspying

Thanks for that Lucy... shared on facebook.

Obviously that article is wAY, WAY less detailed and fact-based than what we're seeing in the US with PRISM, FISC, Stellar Wind, Argus, and the like... but it's enough for me to share and want to start looking for some answers. Apparently the privacy commissioner feels similarly (although I haven't dug up corroborating articles yet).




tazzygirl -> RE: Transparency? (6/11/2013 10:44:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Its late and Im tired. Just post your response and I will pick this back up in the morning. Im sure by then you can show me the links to all the states and when they required a referendum for ratification of constitutions. [;)]

Good night.


and if you are going to start shitting on the discussion and changing the context of what is being discussed to ratification I am done. Either you keep it within my claim or talk to the fucking hand.



Ah, but I didnt. I asked you, per your argument, just where it was written that referendums were needed.

quote:

Show me where a government created by the consent of the people for ourselves can be created without a vote or some paper trail demonstrating said consent.
Otherwise its an unconscionable contract unless you think you can "lawfully" create a government for everyone and shove it up their asses.


So now you have changed the context. Who did choose the Founding Fathers?




Real0ne -> RE: Transparency? (6/11/2013 12:18:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Its late and Im tired. Just post your response and I will pick this back up in the morning. Im sure by then you can show me the links to all the states and when they required a referendum for ratification of constitutions. [;)]

Good night.


and if you are going to start shitting on the discussion and changing the context of what is being discussed to ratification I am done. Either you keep it within my claim or talk to the fucking hand.



Ah, but I didnt. I asked you, per your argument, just where it was written that referendums were needed.

quote:

Show me where a government created by the consent of the people for ourselves can be created without a vote or some paper trail demonstrating said consent.
Otherwise its an unconscionable contract unless you think you can "lawfully" create a government for everyone and shove it up their asses.


So now you have changed the context. Who did choose the Founding Fathers?


first off there is no such thing as "founding fathers", there are british esquires acting as constitutors.

on behalf of whom? you tell.


its due process under the common law. no formal written rules needed. that is why the common law is often referred to as the unwritten law.

However if you want to make a contract and bind someone else there damn well better be paper trail.

You are dancing and providing no paper trail, though I wish you would so my faith would be at least a little repaired.





mnottertail -> RE: Transparency? (6/11/2013 12:24:50 PM)

Of all the things they acted like, constitutors was not among them.   They stood bond for no one, and served their own interest.   It was transparent that they did so.




tazzygirl -> RE: Transparency? (6/11/2013 12:35:41 PM)

quote:

first off there is no such thing as "founding fathers", there are british esquires acting as constitutors.

on behalf of whom? you tell.


its due process under the common law. no formal written rules needed. that is why the common law is often referred to as the unwritten law.

However if you want to make a contract and bind someone else there damn well better be paper trail.

You are dancing and providing no paper trail, though I wish you would so my faith would be at least a little repaired.


And STILL you cant answer any questions... as usual.

R0, you arent able to back up your smack talk.... you never can when someone calls you on it.

Referendums were not even required in most states at that time. Jefferson was working on a rule for Virginia as he was trotting off to the Continental Congress. So, that solves that.

No referendums.

Ask you who chose the delegates since you keep implying they werent authorized. And you still cant answer that either.

You insist that the states didnt approve the constitution. Yet you have not provided proof of that fact either.

Your arguments here, like most of your arguments, are baseless. You demand answers, yet cant give them yourself.





mnottertail -> RE: Transparency? (6/11/2013 12:42:17 PM)

Well, the documents of each states ratification (9 of the 13 had to ratify) are in the national archives, and some of them are on display, time to time.  So the fact that they have not xeroxed them for realones tinfoil schemes to babble on about how he has vound them inadequate in his court of law notwithstanding, there is a paper trail. 




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625