Hello

[Flanders]

Hi,

I thought I would introduce myself with a few clarifications.

I use bold text. That has always been my format.

I capitalize Socialism, Socialist, Communism, Communist for the same reason I capitalize every religion; Islam and Muslim, Catholicism and Catholic, etc.

I generally use the word International as a noun.

I also say Democrat party because I refuse to associate Socialists/Communists with democratic ideals.

I refer to the president as Barack Taqiyya or Taqiyya the Liar.

The XVI Amendment, the XVII Amendment, and US membership in the United Nations are my three favorite targets. Get rid of those three cancers and America will be back on track before you know it.

Coerced charity made possible by the XVI Amendment is especially ugly to me and colors many of my messages.

For the record, I am 80 years old and consider myself an archconservative.

Finally, I should tell liberals that I’ve heard everything they might say should they decide to read and respond to my messages. I’ve heard the personal attacks more times than I can count. I know every debate technique they try including asking clever questions.

 

[Jen]

Hi,

I thought I would introduce myself with a few clarifications.

I use bold text. That has always been my format.

I capitalize Socialism, Socialist, Communism, Communist for the same reason I capitalize every religion; Islam and Muslim, Catholicism and Catholic, etc.

I generally use the word International as a noun.

I also say Democrat party because I refuse to associate Socialists/Communists with democratic ideals.

I refer to the president as Barack Taqiyya or Taqiyya the Liar.

The XVI Amendment, the XVII Amendment, and US membership in the United Nations are my three favorite targets. Get rid of those three cancers and America will be back on track before you know it.

Coerced charity made possible by the XVI Amendment is especially ugly to me and colors many of my messages.

For the record, I am 80 years old and consider myself an archconservative.

Finally, I should tell liberals that I’ve heard everything they might say should they decide to read and respond to my messages. I’ve heard the personal attacks more times than I can count. I know every debate technique they try including asking clever questions.

Welcome.
Bold is fine with me and I agree with your post here.
Most of the time I do say "Democratic Party" and call "Obama" at least that in order to avoid the conversation going that way instead of dealing with the topic at hand, but even conceding that much to the PJLibs/ Dems (or Leftists as I like to refer to them) doesn't keep them from desperately trying to change every topic that posts truth about their failed party and philosophy. Sounds like you are well aware of that. So jump right in.

 

[Caroljo]

Welcome!!!!! (this should be fun) Lol!
I just call liberals idiots....it's easier that way..... . I found there are SOME democrats that aren't the same as the liberal idiots. Not many, but they're out there.

 

[marvin martian]

Welcome Flanders! I think you'll do just fine here, and I'm encouraged to see a man of your years still involved in lively debate (and I mean that with all due respect, honestly).

I am wondering what your beef with the 17th amendment is, though? I can understand having a problem with the 16th and the UN, I find both of those to be a disgrace to our national character, but direct election of senators seems like a good thing. Why do you dislike it?

Otherwise, please stick around and post, we have been needing some new members.

 

[oicu812]

Hi,

I thought I would introduce myself with a few clarifications.

I use bold text. That has always been my format.

I capitalize Socialism, Socialist, Communism, Communist for the same reason I capitalize every religion; Islam and Muslim, Catholicism and Catholic, etc.

I generally use the word International as a noun.

I also say Democrat party because I refuse to associate Socialists/Communists with democratic ideals.

I refer to the president as Barack Taqiyya or Taqiyya the Liar.

The XVI Amendment, the XVII Amendment, and US membership in the United Nations are my three favorite targets. Get rid of those three cancers and America will be back on track before you know it.

Coerced charity made possible by the XVI Amendment is especially ugly to me and colors many of my messages.

For the record, I am 80 years old and consider myself an archconservative.

Finally, I should tell liberals that I’ve heard everything they might say should they decide to read and respond to my messages. I’ve heard the personal attacks more times than I can count. I know every debate technique they try including asking clever questions.

welcome!

you wont have any trouble with clever questions from the left here...clever is not part of their makeup...

 

[bdtex]

Hi,

I thought I would introduce myself with a few clarifications.

I use bold text. That has always been my format.

I capitalize Socialism, Socialist, Communism, Communist for the same reason I capitalize every religion; Islam and Muslim, Catholicism and Catholic, etc.

I generally use the word International as a noun.

I also say Democrat party because I refuse to associate Socialists/Communists with democratic ideals.

I refer to the president as Barack Taqiyya or Taqiyya the Liar.

The XVI Amendment, the XVII Amendment, and US membership in the United Nations are my three favorite targets. Get rid of those three cancers and America will be back on track before you know it.

Coerced charity made possible by the XVI Amendment is especially ugly to me and colors many of my messages.

For the record, I am 80 years old and consider myself an archconservative.

Finally, I should tell liberals that I’ve heard everything they might say should they decide to read and respond to my messages. I’ve heard the personal attacks more times than I can count. I know every debate technique they try including asking clever questions.

Out of curiosity,how did you find this forum?

 

[bdtex]

Hi,

I thought I would introduce myself with a few clarifications.

I use bold text. That has always been my format.

I capitalize Socialism, Socialist, Communism, Communist for the same reason I capitalize every religion; Islam and Muslim, Catholicism and Catholic, etc.

I generally use the word International as a noun.

I also say Democrat party because I refuse to associate Socialists/Communists with democratic ideals.

I refer to the president as Barack Taqiyya or Taqiyya the Liar.

The XVI Amendment, the XVII Amendment, and US membership in the United Nations are my three favorite targets. Get rid of those three cancers and America will be back on track before you know it.

Coerced charity made possible by the XVI Amendment is especially ugly to me and colors many of my messages.

For the record, I am 80 years old and consider myself an archconservative.

Finally, I should tell liberals that I’ve heard everything they might say should they decide to read and respond to my messages. I’ve heard the personal attacks more times than I can count. I know every debate technique they try including asking clever questions.

Please review the forum rules if you haven't already. It seems some are already encouraging you to break the rules.

https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/pj-forum-rules-as-of-feb-2014.65849/

 

[Flanders]

I am wondering what your beef with the 17th amendment is, though?

To marvin martian: Where to begin! It’s best that I begin at the beginning.

The XVII Amendment was a reaction against crooks. Prior to the XVII Amendment US Senators served their states; the larceny was incidental, and manageable, until the income tax gave them the keys to the public larder.

After the XVII Amendment was adopted (NOT RATIFIED) the country ended up with crooks —— and UN-loving traitors. More often than not they are one and the same. I often call the Senate a nest of traitors.

NOTE: If the topic of ratification interests you this article is a good place to start your research:

This work is dedicated to Bill Benson and his wife Lorraine. If Bill had not given up two years of his life to root out the official state and federal documents, we would never have known that both the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were never properly ratified. For uncovering this monstrous tragedy for our country, Bill has endured prison and endless hounding and prosecution by "our" government. His wife has stood by his side for almost three decades of this injustice and suffered as she watched her husband flogged near to death by "our" government.

National Archives
Seventeenth Amendment
By: Devvy Kidd
March 2010

http://www.devvy.com/new_site/17th_amendment_docs_march_2010.html

Democracy was the main selling point for the XVII Amendment. The fact is that democracy sucks. In addition to H. L. Mencken’s astute observation:

Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

here is what our Founding Fathers thought about democracy.

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%. Thomas Jefferson

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John Adams

Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few. John Adams, An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, August 29, 1763

“The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.” John Quincy Adams

When the people find they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic. Benjamin Franklin

We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy...it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity. Alexander Hamilton

My view is that democracy is always going toward something worse never toward individual liberties. Worse still, democracy has been the preferred form of government for parasites throughout history.

Regarding the application of the XVII Amendment

Long-serving senators is the curse of the XVII Amendment. Kings come and go, but senators rule forever just as dukes and barons of yore outlasted many a monarch. A long-serving senator is infinitely more imperial than the king when you apply the definition of imperial to XVII Amendment senators —— Having supreme authority; sovereign.

You can’t name a president that had more supreme authority than did the late Ted Kennedy. And he had it long enough to implement his personal agenda even to the point of betraying the country. Kings would have been deposed had they done the things Kennedy was guilty of.

Parenthetically, the ruling class has only to control 51 Senators. That is easy because only 1/3rd of the 100 senators runs for reelection every 6 years. Controlling the House in the same way is out of the question. The cost of maintaining control over 51 senators every time one is replaced by their state legislature would be prohibitive.

Notice that idiots voting for senators reaffirms every appalling aspect of democracy.

I’ve only touched on my objections to the XVII Amendment. I hope it was enough to satisfy your curiosity.

welcome!

you wont have any trouble with clever questions from the left here...clever is not part of their makeup...

To oicus812: It never is.

Out of curiosity,how did you find this forum?

To bdtex: I researched political message boards.

Incidentally, I’ve posted on 9 or 10 boards in 14 years. My first two boards were one-topic-only boards. A few went out of business. I bid farewell to a few when censorship got so bad I couldn’t stand it. A board’s format is also a factor in staying or leaving. So I’m always looking for a new playground or a backup board.

Before I am accused of spamming, I’ll take this opportunity to tell a monitor that I edit and post messages that I’ve posted over the years. All of the text is mine and mine alone although it may be an edited update of an original message written years or months ago.

 

[Craig]

To marvin martian: Where to begin! It’s best that I begin at the beginning.

The XVII Amendment was a reaction against crooks. Prior to the XVII Amendment US Senators served their states; the larceny was incidental, and manageable, until the income tax gave them the keys to the public larder.

After the XVII Amendment was adopted (NOT RATIFIED) the country ended up with crooks —— and UN-loving traitors. More often than not they are one and the same. I often call the Senate a nest of traitors.

NOTE: If the topic of ratification interests you this article is a good place to start your research:

Democracy was the main selling point for the XVII Amendment. The fact is that democracy sucks. In addition to H. L. Mencken’s astute observation:

here is what our Founding Fathers thought about democracy.

My view is that democracy is always going toward something worse never toward individual liberties. Worse still, democracy has been the preferred form of government for parasites throughout history.

Regarding the application of the XVII Amendment

Long-serving senators is the curse of the XVII Amendment. Kings come and go, but senators rule forever just as dukes and barons of yore outlasted many a monarch. A long-serving senator is infinitely more imperial than the king when you apply the definition of imperial to XVII Amendment senators —— Having supreme authority; sovereign.

You can’t name a president that had more supreme authority than did the late Ted Kennedy. And he had it long enough to implement his personal agenda even to the point of betraying the country. Kings would have been deposed had they done the things Kennedy was guilty of.

Parenthetically, the ruling class has only to control 51 Senators. That is easy because only 1/3rd of the 100 senators runs for reelection every 6 years. Controlling the House in the same way is out of the question. The cost of maintaining control over 51 senators every time one is replaced by their state legislature would be prohibitive.

Notice that idiots voting for senators reaffirms every appalling aspect of democracy.

I’ve only touched on my objections to the XVII Amendment. I hope it was enough to satisfy your curiosity.

To oicus812: It never is.

To bdtex: I researched political message boards.

Incidentally, I’ve posted on 9 or 10 boards in 14 years. My first two boards were one-topic-only boards. A few went out of business. I bid farewell to a few when censorship got so bad I couldn’t stand it. A board’s format is also a factor in staying or leaving. So I’m always looking for a new playground or a backup board.

Before I am accused of spamming, I’ll take this opportunity to tell a monitor that I edit and post messages that I’ve posted over the years. All of the text is mine and mine alone although it may be an edited update of an original message written years or months ago.

From Monticello.org

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-will-cease-to-exist-quotation

Status: This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson. It bears a very vague resemblance to Jefferson's comment in a prospectus for his translation of Destutt de Tracy's Treatise on Political Economy: "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, —the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'"[3]


In re: the 17th Amendment...you indicate that you understand exactly why the Amendment was put in place. Crooks. The Senate had become either a patronage spot, paid for through easily corruptible state legislatures, or a bartering point with disagreeable legislatures withholding appointments over political disagreements. It was shown to be an unworkable system as early as 1826, when the initial proposal for direct elections was made.

 

[marvin martian]

To marvin martian: Where to begin! It’s best that I begin at the beginning.

The XVII Amendment was a reaction against crooks. Prior to the XVII Amendment US Senators served their states; the larceny was incidental, and manageable, until the income tax gave them the keys to the public larder.

After the XVII Amendment was adopted (NOT RATIFIED) the country ended up with crooks —— and UN-loving traitors. More often than not they are one and the same. I often call the Senate a nest of traitors.

NOTE: If the topic of ratification interests you this article is a good place to start your research:

Democracy was the main selling point for the XVII Amendment. The fact is that democracy sucks. In addition to H. L. Mencken’s astute observation:

here is what our Founding Fathers thought about democracy.

My view is that democracy is always going toward something worse never toward individual liberties. Worse still, democracy has been the preferred form of government for parasites throughout history.

Regarding the application of the XVII Amendment

Long-serving senators is the curse of the XVII Amendment. Kings come and go, but senators rule forever just as dukes and barons of yore outlasted many a monarch. A long-serving senator is infinitely more imperial than the king when you apply the definition of imperial to XVII Amendment senators —— Having supreme authority; sovereign.

You can’t name a president that had more supreme authority than did the late Ted Kennedy. And he had it long enough to implement his personal agenda even to the point of betraying the country. Kings would have been deposed had they done the things Kennedy was guilty of.

Parenthetically, the ruling class has only to control 51 Senators. That is easy because only 1/3rd of the 100 senators runs for reelection every 6 years. Controlling the House in the same way is out of the question. The cost of maintaining control over 51 senators every time one is replaced by their state legislature would be prohibitive.

Notice that idiots voting for senators reaffirms every appalling aspect of democracy.

I’ve only touched on my objections to the XVII Amendment. I hope it was enough to satisfy your curiosity.

To oicus812: It never is.

To bdtex: I researched political message boards.

Incidentally, I’ve posted on 9 or 10 boards in 14 years. My first two boards were one-topic-only boards. A few went out of business. I bid farewell to a few when censorship got so bad I couldn’t stand it. A board’s format is also a factor in staying or leaving. So I’m always looking for a new playground or a backup board.

Before I am accused of spamming, I’ll take this opportunity to tell a monitor that I edit and post messages that I’ve posted over the years. All of the text is mine and mine alone although it may be an edited update of an original message written years or months ago.

Thanks for your detailed response. I see your objections, but it seems to me you object more the the idea of a senate at all versus the way they are elected. I agree that the potential for corruption exists regardless of the method by which they gain office. Our problem as a nation seems to be our willingness to ignore massive personal, moral and professional flaws in the people we elect...

 

[Flanders]

From Monticello.org
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-will-cease-to-exist-quotation

Status: This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson. It bears a very vague resemblance to Jefferson's comment in a prospectus for his translation of Destutt de Tracy's Treatise on Political Economy: "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, —the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'"[3]

To Craig: Thanks for the correction. I removed it. I’ll use yours in the future!

From Monticello.org
In re: the 17th Amendment...you indicate that you understand exactly why the Amendment was put in place. Crooks.

To Craig: Crooks and democracy.

From Monticello.org
The Senate had become either a patronage spot, paid for through easily corruptible state legislatures, or a bartering point with disagreeable legislatures withholding appointments over political disagreements.

To Craig: Nepotism joined patronage at the public trough.

nepotism (noun)

Favoritism shown or patronage granted to relatives, as in business.

Nepotism in business I can understand. There’s nothing wrong with a family business. Nepotism in government is another ball game. Today’s senator’s dole out patronage and nepotism.

Prior to the XVI Amendment that gave us the tax on personal income nepotism was an unavoidable evil but controllable. Thanks to the XVI and XVII Amendments nepotism has grown in leaps and bounds because of tax dollars. Big city political machines turned nepotism into an art form.

Incidentally, a few years ago it was reported that over 80 Kennedys had government jobs.

Also, the way Senate seats are being “saved” by caretakers until a member of the “right” family is ready to take office is one of the ugliest forms of nepotism. Joe Biden’s Senate seat was originally going to be saved by a caretaker until Beau Biden was ready to serve the people.

And, of course, there is nepotism once removed. Hillary Clinton’s initial run for the Senate would have been seen as the joke it was had her husband not been president.

Also, widows appointed to serve out a dead spouse’s term comes to mind. So far, no widower has been so honored.

Rank and file parasites who vote for the practitioners of nepotism think they are getting something for nothing when all they do is advance the evils of heredity government minus the benefits. Yet if you ask them if they want America to become a monarchy they scream bloody murder.

A seldom-mentioned connection between parasites and nepotism is this one: Nobody gives a deserving relative a lousy job. Nepotism survives because parasites get soft touch jobs; often no-show “employment.” The puzzle is why those who work hard for their money don’t seem to mind supporting bloodline parasites?

After a good look at the people in that foul cesspool democracy gave the country no one with any sense should be in favor of electing senators.

From Monticello.org
It was shown to be an unworkable system as early as 1826, when the initial proposal for direct elections was made.

To Craig: Now that the XVII Amendment has been with us since 1913 the track record shows that an elected Senate is far worse than was the Senate before 1913. I would cite three things to make my case:

1. Long-serving senators as I covered in #8 permalink.

2. The Senate’s rejection of the League of Nations shows that electing Senators bred traitors by the time 1945 and the United Nations rolled around. Only two Senators voted against membership in the UN.

On this day in 1945, as World War II drew to a close, the Senate ratified the United Nations Charter by 89-2. Its approval signaled a sea change in U.S. involvement in world affairs.

Senate Ratifies United Nations Charter, July 28, 1945
By ANDREW GLASS | 7/28/10 4:37 AM EDT

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40299.html

US membership in the UN means that no American official betraying this country on the UN’s behalf can be prosecuted for treason. That is what elected senators gave us. It is fair to say that before 1913 —— and for a few years after 1913 —— “patronage” senators were at least loyal to the nation.

NOTE: It would be a helluva lot worse were it not for the Connally Reservation. Without the Connally Reservation the UN could take American election results to the ICC. Of course the ICC cannot enforce its decisions on the American people, but Democrats could then use the ICC’s decision as justification in our courts for overturning elections. There are four United Nations-loving justices on the SCOTUS already.

Here is a brief excerpt from a 2005 article identifying the Connally Reservation:

Of more concern to the country is Connally Reservation, which, in six words, may keep the U.S. from falling to the control of the UN and the International Criminal Court, (ICC).

Before ratifying the United Nations Charter in 1945, the Senate was wise enough to amend the section dealing with the World Court by barring the Court from jurisdiction over matters which were essentially domestic "AS DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES."

Those six words, authored by Senator Tom Connally (D-Texas), are known as the "Connally Reservation" and are the only thing which COULD prevent the World Court from interfering in American internal affairs on the pretext that our tariffs, immigration laws, school curriculums, etc., affect American relations with other countries and are therefore "foreign" and not "domestic."

http://kendersmusings.blogspot.com/2005/10/gunsfreedom-or-why-is-second-amendment.html

The battle over repealing the Connally Reservation has been ongoing since 1946 —— most of it below the public’s radar screen. Connally’s Amendment to the UN Charter has protected Americans from more than an average person like me could ever cover; not the least of those protections was shielding our Second Amendment from UN gun control advocates. Should you research it, I think you’ll be surprised, and maybe disappointed, in some of the people who supported repealing the Connally Reservation.

The UN has become so overtly anti-America in recent years it gave me hope that the forces to repeal the Connally Reservation would be stopped.

Even better, withdrawing from the UN has slowly been gaining ground since the Internet came into being. H.R. 1146, first introduced in 1997, never got a vote; still it is worth reading:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1146/text

3. The American people had the most freedoms before 1913.

Thanks for your detailed response. I see your objections, but it seems to me you object more the the idea of a senate at all versus the way they are elected. I agree that the potential for corruption exists regardless of the method by which they gain office. Our problem as a nation seems to be our willingness to ignore massive personal, moral and professional flaws in the people we elect...

To marvin martian: The government was designed to separate powers. The Senate consolidates power in the presidency and in itself. Example: The Senate is writing legislation that raises revenues à la the ACA in direct violation of the Constitution . In addition to my other objections, I object to what the Senate is today. One of the most important aspects of returning to the Constitution is returning to a separation of powers. Elected senators will block every such attempt.

 

[Zoar]

Thanks Craig for correcting some of the misinformation spewing from another Uber Righty Goose Stepper.

 

[oicu812]

Thanks Craig for correcting some of the misinformation spewing from another Uber Righty Goose Stepper.

flanders,,see what i mean?

 

[Flanders]

flanders,,see what i mean?

To oicus812: The Hindenburg giving the Titanic a helping hand.

 

[Zoar]

To oicus812: The Hindenburg giving the Titanic a helping hand.

Arrogance and a bombastic persona go hand in hand in the Uber Right Wing Goosestepper character.

 

[Dawg]

Welcome Flanders.........
I see as soon as revealed you're conservative the liberal attacks began........

Introduction =liberal attacks yet Mods can't understand why PJ can't get it's MOJO back....and NEW members. ╤

 

[Flanders]

Welcome Flanders.........
I see as soon as revealed you're conservative the liberal attacks began........

Introduction =liberal attacks yet Mods can't understand why PJ can't get it's MOJO back....and NEW members. ╤

To Dawg: Thanks.

It is a bit soon to know for sure, but from what I’ve seen so far Political Jack libs have less wit, less originality, and less intelligence than many that I’ve encountered elsewhere.

 

[Zoar]

Welcome Flanders.........
I see as soon as revealed you're conservative the liberal attacks began........

Introduction =liberal attacks yet Mods can't understand why PJ can't get it's MOJO back....and NEW members. ╤

Dawgy, you're the one threatening people. Which by the way is way out of control and i hope someone tells you to cut it out.

 

[Zoar]

To Dawg: Thanks.

It is a bit soon to know for sure, but from what I’ve seen so far Political Jack libs have less wit, less originality, and less intelligence than many that I’ve encountered elsewhere.

And you have the same pompous superiority combined with easily refuted misinformation as the common, ignorant Righty. Yawn.

 

[Zoar]

Even your announcement with insistence that you only use bold type... HA! Clearly trying to over compensate for your cut and paste parade of lies, obfuscations and misinformation; crap we have seen a hundred times from other low knowledge Righties here on PJ. Just because you are conceited and think so very highly of yourself does not mean anyone else has to, particularly in light of the boiler plate lame same old right wing talking points you flew in with!!! Hahahahaaaa. So far you're a sad and sorry arrogant joke, pal. Something we have seen come and go posting on here from Right Wing propaganda regurgitators at PJ so many tomes already.